Branden Robinson wrote: > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change.
i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least half of the voting populous. Condorecet seems pretty resilient to insincere voting. for each method of counting Supermajorities, it has been shown to where it possible, in some cases almost trivial, for an insincere vote to change the result of an election. that appears to defeat the whole purpose of using Condorcet to begin with. just out of idle curiosity, has anyone asked the electionmethods people about Condorcet+Supermajority? should someone? a google search produced this: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4wJT-1c0FykC:www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/McGann02.pdf+condorcet+supermajority&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 this paper seems to say that supermajorities produce a tyranny of the status quo, *at the expense of the minority* -john
