Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:21:18 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
>> consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
>> are effectively rejecting the possibility that that option could be
>> a valid solution to whatever we are voting for. Vetoing solutions
>> is not a great way to achieve consensus; but consensus is not
>> something that can be forced.
> Ah, but there is a paradox: Consensus on one of the options does
> exist. The option just got dropped (failed n:1 requirements) due to
> people wanting another option, too. That is, I think, a technical
How the hell would it get dropped if people actually had a
consensus and wanted it? And if they did not vote for it, did they
really want it anyway? If they did not vote for it, and they did not
want it, there is no consensus.
Condorcet allows you to specify both the options you want --
indeed, you can rank all options you prefer as 1.
Ripping Yarns "Mind you, not as bad as the night Archie Pettigrew ate
some sheep's testicles for a bet...God, that bloody sheep kicked
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C