On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract" supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a 3:1 majority, and makes it extremely difficult even to satisfy a propostion that requires only a simple majority.
This doesn't make sense.
Of course it does. Consider:
I don't think you understand the voting system.
[ ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian Swirl Red) [ ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian Swirl Green [ ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian Swirl Blue [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
250 ballots ranking 1234 250 ballots ranking 2314 250 ballots ranking 3124 250 ballots ranking 2221
Choices 1, 2, and 3 require a 3:1 majority to pass, of course.
What happens? Our voting system does not give us the ability to reach the common-sense conclusion that 3 out of every 4 voters wanted to remove clause 5 from the Social Contract. Instead,
Which, in a 3:1 majority, is barely enough.
The language in the Constitution is "strictly greater", so it is barely not enough.
"further discussion" wins.
Wrong. I think that this is where the disconnect is; this example represents a profound misunderstanding of our voting system.
Well, "further discussion" does win, since 750:250 is not "strictly greater" than 3:1.
But, modulo that edge case, I agree this example represents a profound misunderstanding of our voting system.
Option 1 passes Majority. 3.000 (750/250) > 3 Option 2 passes Majority. 3.000 (750/250) > 3 Option 3 passes Majority. 3.000 (750/250) > 3
For the sake of argument, let's say 3.000 > 3 instead of 3.000 == 3.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
