Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]

[Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:55:02PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:

> So, can't this be fixed by just changing the algorithm from "drop all
> options which don't pass majority requirements, then determine the
> winner" to "determine the winner, then check whether the winner passes
> majority requirements"?

Possibly.  The issues surrounding this implementation of supermajority in
Condorcet were discussed back in 2002:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/11/msg00243.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/11/msg00174.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/11/msg00222.html

In reviewing the list archives from that period, it's not immediately clear
to me why we ended up with supermajority requirements being handled before
calculating the pairwise defeats.  At least as late as Dec 7, there were
drafts being discussed which had different properties,

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/12/msg00023.html

And it looks like the path to the current algorithm was set with this
message on Dec 9:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/12/msg00039.html

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org