On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:54:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and > I think we all understand it to mean "causing the system to violate the > Condorcet criterion".
That's fine, but that doesn't necessarily make the system "broken". > >supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD -- > >if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They don't necessarily > >choose the Condorcet winner either, but that's a feature, not a bug. > So, supposing there is a Condorcet winner (who doesn't make quorum), > and another non-default option (who does), you want to choose the > *other* option, not the default option *or* the Condorcet option? That's correct. From a voting nerd point-of-view, we're not really running a simple Condorcet vote here, we're actually running two votes simultaneously. One is an approval vote, where we mark every non-default option as either approved or not-approved; and we require that a particular proportion of the developer body approve each option, and that more developers approve it than do not. The other is a Condorcet vote, evaluated on the approved (non-default) options. Only if there are _no_ approved options does the default option win, which is to say, does the the vote get discarded. You can equally say that requiring seconds for proposed options breaks Condorcet -- after all, if a potentially winning option doesn't receive enough seconds to be voted on at all, then the Condorcet criterion is violated. But it's not really very interesting. > That's perverse, and certainly an extremely undesirable quality of a > voting system. Well, if you say so, it must be true. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
