On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:53:15AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > A.6(3) A supermajority requirement of n:m for an option A means that > when votes are considered which indicate option A as a better > choice than some other option B, the number of votes in favor > of A are multiplied by m/n.
This gives different results to the current system when two options on
a single ballot would require different supermajorities to pass.
Please reread:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:07:24 +1000
and:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:44:40 +1000
for the explanation.
A much fairer supermajority requirement would simply be:
A.6(3) A supermajority of N:M for an option A is met when the number of
votes ranking A higher than the default option, divided by N is
greater than than the number of votes ranking the default option
higher than A.
However it's not clear what should happen when the clear winner of a set
of options doesn't meet its supermajority requirement, yet a loser (with
a different supermajority requirement) does. It's similarly unclear what
should happen if the winner doesn't meet its supermajority requirments,
but some other member of the Smith set does.
I would suggest something to the effect of:
* Reduce to the Smith Set
* Eliminate options that don't meet the supermajority requirement
* If none left -> default option wins
* If one left -> it wins
* If many left, use some tie-breaker, eg STV, Tideman, Schulze
Somewhat more detailed discussion of that sort of method is back in:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:42:44 +1000
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
pgpLIVyhnTgRJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
