On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Buddha Buck wrote: > > Here's how it would work. Voters rank all candidates or options, but also > > put in a "cut line" above which all candidates/options are approved, and > > below which, no candidates/options are approved. One could create a dummy > > candidate to achieve this if the ballot isn't conducive to the "cut line" > > idea.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 07:42:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Presumably the "further discussion" option that's on all ballots would > work for this? The cut-line would be the constitution's quorum. Essentially, the quorum is the number of automatic votes for the default option. [And, yeah, that option is "further discussion" for most debian ballots.] > > In really rare cases this might lead to paradoxical situations where the > > winning option doesn't have the required approval rating, but a lesser > > option does. > > Some possibilities: > > a) A clear condorcet winner, that doesn't have enough of a > supermajority to succeed. Supermajority basically means that yes votes have fractional significance. You don't have a clear winner if you don't have enough votes -- unless you pretend that the yes votes have some different significance? > b) A tie for first place (ie, the schwartz set has two or more > options in it), where "further discussion" is one of the > equal winners, and it pairwise beats whatever is chosen as > the real winner. If this is a true tie, we need a tie-breaking vote (casting vote). That would mean it's up to the leader for the stuff we're talking about here. > c) A tie for first place where all the winners beat further > discussion, but the winner selected by whichever tie breaker's > used requires a supermajority that it doesn't have, and one > of the other winners has all the majority it needs (because > it only requires a smaller one, say) That wouldn't have been a tie. -- Raul
