On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:32:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > It offends my aesthetic senses as a programmer. ;-) > > > > Rewriting it as > > > > >>> e. If a majority of n:m is required for A, and B is the > > >>> default > > >>> option, N(B,A) is (n/m). In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1. > > > > doesn't look any more verbose to me. > > True. It's more complicated but it's not really all that much more > verbose. > > Focussing on aesthetics: right now the only two supermajority ratios > possible are 2:1 and 3:1 -- the numbers 2 and 3 are easy to represent. > Asking for something more general, without specifying what that more > general thing is going to solve, invites all sort of complexity having > to do with the [non-existant] possibilities.
And you can anyway change your n:m ratio with a n/m:1 ratio, so this should be a transparent change to the voting system. You would have to rewrite your below algorithm though, altough i think you can handle it even without using floats, by multiplying N(A) by n and N(B) by m (where B is the default option. > Is there another reason for introducing that complexity? It gives more flexibility for supermajorities, apart from the 66% and 75% that corresponds to 2:1 and 3:1. Friendly, Sven Luther
