On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > Can you give reasons for (1a) and (1b)? As far as I understood the > debate, the reason for a quorum is to avoid "stealth-decision-making", > i.e. to assert that enough developers notice the election and take part > in it. Because of this for me the concept of a per-option quorum does > not make much sense. What do you think?
Ballot contains A and D, A has 1:1 majority, D is default option. Quorum is 45. 23 people vote for A. A defeats D, but A doesn't meet quorum, default option wins. 23 people vote for A. 22 people vote for D. A defeats D, A meets quorum, A wins. Or: the addition of 22 people voting against A caused A to win. In my opinion, this is very wrong. Note also that the process of ballot creation needs protection from lack of interest. We can't assume, just because someone submits a ballot, that they participated during the creation of that ballot. I use comparison with the default option to determine whether or not the voter approves of that option being on the ballot. Aside: I'm in favor of an analysis of the voting system based on the electionmethods principles you referred to. I expect [hope] that without quorum and supermajority requirements the system I proposed earlier today meets all the criteria of condorcet. With quorum and supermajority I expect there to be edge cases where we lose criteria which aren't criteria of approval. I hope someone can prove that my expectations are right [or wrong, if they are indeed wrong]. Thanks, -- Raul
