Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 12:01:09PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 02:34:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > With your rule, you instead just have an initial vote, with the initial
> > pairwise preferences:
> >     A dominates B, 60 to 40
> >     A dominates F, 100 to 10
> >     B dominates F, 100 to 10
> What part of my proposed A.6 leads you to believe this?  [It's other
> parts of the constitution which specify how the ballots are constructed.]

If you still require N initial votes and 1 final vote, it has no benefit
over the current wording, at all, since supermajorities only apply to
final votes, which are forced to have simply Yes/No/Further Discussion
as their options.

If you'd rather that I'd phrased it as "you instead just have a final
vote, with the pairwise preferences", you're welcome to take it as that.

Again, the three things that need to be changed in the constitution,
IMO, are:

        a) resolving circular ties needs to be decided on and spelled out
        b) votes with multiple options need to be able to be handled by a
           single vote
        c) supermajority requirements need to be updated to cope with (b)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
                       -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001

PGP signature