> Since we're already using a Condorcet-base scheme, it's probably best to > keep doing that (ie, keeping the "foo DOMINATES bar"). From the latter > URL, it seems that "Tideman" and "Schulze" are probably the most suitable > (they're not vulnerable to most of the nasty strategies). Mike Ossipoff > listed a whole bunch of related systems in his letters too. > <snip> > > I presume the best way to handle different possiblities on ballots is > just to vote on them at once (eg, "Remove non-free // We love non-free! // > Status-quo // Further discussion") and have whichever one wins (according > to the voting rules, and any supermajority requirements), win.
Could someone explain to me, in simple terms, how Condorcet-based voting schemes work in the face of a supermajority requirement? My understanding of Condorcet is that a ballot like Anthony Towns used as an example ("Remove non-free // We Love non-free! // Status-quo // Further discussion") would be, during the first analysis, treated as if it were 6 separate 1-on-1 votes, with each of the four choices paired against each of the remaining 3. If any of the four wins all three of the 1-on-1 votes it's part of, it wins the full balloting. Otherwise, we use a fall-back resolution method (of which there are several varieties in the literature to choose in advance from). This works fine if all the options required a plurality to win (note: I'm not even sure if "majority" or "plurality" are appropriate descriptions of the victory condition in Condorcet-based schemes). The system is balanced. But if one of the choices explicitly requires a 3:1 supermajority to work, I don't see how it works quite so well. Can someone clear this up for me? -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice