On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to > eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued > ballot (ratify this? [Y/N]). Note that we already had this happen in the instance of ratifying the constitutional amendment that updated the voting system to what it is now. > If there are no competing amendments, > there really is no need for the default option, the Condorcet algorithm, > or any of the other trappings; and it would not have any of the same > worries with supermajority/quorum. The options on the ballot were "Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment" and "Further Discussion". The former required a supermajority to pass, a quorum was required. CpSSD handled it quite fine. Note also that while some people were worried that maybe we hadn't thought of everything and thus advocated further discussion, no one was advocating either that we stick with the voting system we had as it was, nor was anyone advocating viable alternatives. > But yes/no votes may not be common > enough in practice to justify the added complexity in the constitution > itself. Why add complexity when what we already have works fine? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Attachment:
pgpJiPENCeQrT.pgp
Description: PGP signature