On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:27:17AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote: > I'm a little confused about the default option, and what the intention > of a supermajority is.
In general? Or in the case of the "hybrid theory" proposal? [As that proposal violates monotonicity, I don't think anybody wants to use it. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200212/msg00095.html] > Assume the default option is different to the status quo, as you have > indicated above. > > Assume these options. > > A: "Change constitution" (10:1 supermajority) > B: "No change" (status quo). > D: "Further discussion". (default option) > > Assume that most people are sick of discussing the issue, and just want > a result. (I think it is resonable to assume this will occur in real > life situations). Hence, most people rank "further discussion" last. In other words, you've assumed that most people would rather approve the option with supermajority than discuss the issue further. > Votes are like this. > > 52 ABD > 40 BAD > 8 DBA > > A defeats B (52:48) > A defeats D (92:80) (Due to supermajority) > B defeats D (92:8) > > Here, A wins, even though a superminority of people prefer the status quo. A satisfies its supermajority requirement. 8 people prefer D, 92 people prefer A. Are you suggesting it be possible to put on the ballot a "no further discussion" option which supermajority options must defeat by the supermajority option? > In my opinion, supermajority requirements are set to make sure major > changes need very popular support, to ensure that major changes only > happen when absolutely needed. Not precisely. Supermajority is designed to tend to provide us with a few things we can depend on (like the vote resolution system) when we make our decisions. If we have a problem with non-free, the resolution probably should not be "change vote resolution so that we can't vote on non-free". > Again in my opinion, if a superminority of voters support no change > rather than major change, then no change should take place. In principle, if a majority of voters want change there should be a reason they want change. However, it takes some understanding of the underlying issue to come up with a resolution for that issue. > In the vote above, a superminority of voters have supported no change > rather than major change (the constitution change), hence the > supermajority option should not win. Why? Almost everyone agreed that there's no point in trying come up with some other solution. > However, "Hybrid method" allows option A (the supermajority option) to win. As it should. The flaws in that proposal lie elsewhere. > If people really believe that the supermajority option should win > despite a superminority of voters supporting the status quo, and if they > believe that if people are sick of discussing an issue, the > supermajority should pass with a simple majority, then say so, and I > won't continue in this argument. Heh... > People could say that the "40 BAD" voters should of voted "40 BDA". But > this means they would of had to vote insincerely. "Further discussion" > is their least prefered option, and thats where they have placed it. I > don't see why a method should require them to pretend they still want to > talk about an issue just to stop a supermajority option from passing. I'm not saying that the "should have voted differently". I do say, however, that if their votes were sincere then this outcome is reasonable. > I don't see why the current proposal insists supermajority requirements > can be met with a simple majority over the status quo. I think a > supermajority over the status quo should be required, and the proposals > I have made enforce that requirement. But if people want supermajority > requirements to have no effect when people are sick of "further > discussing" an issue, than the current "Hybrid" proposal is fine. In my > opinion however, that is not a supermajority. In your hypothetical case, status quo includes the fact that a majority of voters think something needs to be done. -- Raul
