Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority: > [1] ... [5] I did not think much about this until now. But what do you think about
[6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
to change the constitution or social contract. We could use
something like: every voter may just say "yes" or "no" to the
proposed change (i.e. there is no list of options). The change
is accepted if there are, say, at least Q total votes and at
least N times as may "yes" votes the "no" votes.
reasons why this could make sense:
* Supermajorities are a tool to protect fundamental documents
of the project by making changes to them more difficult.
* My main concern about supermajorities is, that this would
somehow "damage" the positive aspects of Condorcet voting in
a hard to understand way. By not using Condorcet voting to
change these protected documents this would be resolved.
* Of course strategy [6] only makes sense for yes/no decisions.
But I guess that proposed changes to the fundamental
documents are typically such decisions. For example I saw no
alternative proposals in the remove-non-free debate.
* If we really would want to cover the case of several
competing proposals we could use a two step mechanism: we
could first determine a candidate via Condorect voting with
CpSCC (without any supermajority stuff) and then use [6] the
decide whether we want the winner of the first step to be
implemented.
What do you think?
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
pgpXbKMXrF5bB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
