Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument
for it.
[2] Discard the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have
> > lost.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:00:17AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger,
> isn't it?
No, but
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The default option isn't
> > something you can be particularly "sincere" about
>
> Your point here being that even if the default wins, the vote will
> be held again
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>> The only real issue is the one where your sincere vote:
>> A S D(normal option, supermajority option, default option)
>> will cause S to win (thanks to you letting it pass its supermajority), but
>> your insincere vote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
conscientious objecto
Hi,
After thinking about the whole supermajority stuff a bit, I think we need
to get back to what exactly we want.
I'd say that a single vote is meant to decide between a mutually exclusive
set of options. This means, to me, that each option's supermajority or
quorum requirements should be consid
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> But, I still insist that it is still not ok if the system allows an
> insincere vote to hand victory to a non-default option.
Uh, if you're just going to insist on it no matter what, there's
not really much point discussing it with
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
> > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met
> > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quoru
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
> required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
> simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument
> for it.
>
I don't think that's a good idea -- the concept of a
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> You (and Matthias) seem to be assuming that if quorum isn't reached,
> then the ballot measures should be shot down. I and John are saying
> that if quorum isn't reached, then the trigger hasn't been pulled yet
> (to stretch a metaphor).
>
> You are also applying quorum req
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:27:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met,
> > > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF
> > > and thus
For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
--
A.6 Vote Counting
1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
all options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered
pref
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
>
I like. One minor nit:
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
> all options need be ranked.
Giving the same rank to more than one option is permitted.
> "RATIONALE": Voter
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
