On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 07:13:51PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > first of all: the longer I think about all this election stuff, > the less I like the ideas of quorum and supermajority. > Condorcet voting with Schwartz Sequential Dropping has > some good properties, as is explained on the electionmethods.org site.
In other words, if we hold a vote with one voter participating, we should be able to replace condorcet voting with a random number generator? We're trying to minimize complexity, but we're not trying to eliminate it entirely. > More substantial: this is a change with respect to the current > constitution. Sure -- this whole thing is a proposed change to the constitution. > (A.6.8. states "If a quorum is required, there must be > at least that many votes which prefer the winning option to the > default option.", so there the number of supporters, not the margin, > is important). Is this change intentional? I like the old version > better. Hmm... I need to think about this. Thanks. > > Definition: A proposition (N,K) is weaker than a > > proposition (L,M) if the preference (N,K) is less than > > the preference (L,M). > Careful here: "preference (N,K) is less than the preference (L,M)" > is ambiguous, isn't it? We need to make clear here, that what > counts is not the width of the margin, but the maximum of the two > numbers of votes. I don't think this ambiguity exists if you look at the definition of preference (X,Y). Did I miss something? [Then again, this is a moot point, since I'm planning on tossing this entire draft.] Thanks, -- Raul
