> > It's not fair to base an argument on an axiom which is known to be false.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:45:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > It doesn't matter whether the axiom is false as written: it's trivial > to salvage its intended meaning (by either dropping quorum requirements, > or qualifying the axiom to apply only when the quorum requirements have > already been met for all the options listed). I can accept, with that clause added, the axiom that the option ranked first must win the election. I am uncomfortable this for the axiom that the option ranked last must lose. It's just too arbitrary. For example, consider also a ballot with only one option (not that our current system allows this). The resulting statement is rather akward to accept as being true without proof. > The question > is why you would want to go ahead and default the election anyway, > when there is an option that can be accepted (it meets quorum, doesn't > require a supermajority, and obviously a majority prefer it to defaulting > the election)? I think I've got a proposal which addresses this problem. [next message] > It's _much_ better to work out the principles first, then the mechanisms. Ok, but bear with me a bit when I ask questions to help me sort out implicit questions. > We already have a context: "what does it mean in terms of the given > election"? I don't see how you can say anything other than: "it means > that we go with the majority decision that B is better than defaulting". ... > ... any sufficiently > sized "super" minority should be able to block any given options with > supermajority requirements. This helps. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
