On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:40:49PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > correct me if i am wrong, but, isn't quorum suppoed to _prevent_ > minority rule? now you are saying that minority rule is good, and > desired?
What do you mean? There are forms of minority rule which quorum prevents, and there are forms it allows. Certainly, quorum isn't about having a small group of people dictating to a larger group of people without the larger group having any say. > if that is the case, i recommend scrapping the entire idea of quorum, as > it breaks condorcet in strange and interesting ways. Condorcet itself allows certain forms of minority role and prevents others. Sometimes I get the idea that you're saying things, not because you're trying to achieve some worthwhile end, but because you like the way they sound. Is that the case here? > in this case, the options were not fairly close at all. 10 people > prefered A over B. only five people prefered B over A. that is a 2:1 > margin. that is a 2/3'ds majority in favour of A, and it still lost. So what? In the example I presented earlier (ballot: A, B, default D, one vote: ABD), option A was infinitely preferred over all other options. You're arguing that we should accept such a vote, even though (other than one person) no one wanted to (or was able to) participate in it. And yet, you're arguing that we should accept this kind of election as valid, and apparently the basis you're using for your argument is that minority rule is bad. What's the point? -- Raul
