Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:44 AM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > > >for the ``quorum'' requirement: this is easy. > >require X number of seconds with each anti-second counting against the > >totally number of seconds. > > So, in other words, drop Condorcet and switch to a simple majority vote > instead. You've got votes for (seconds) and votes against > (anti-seconds). How is this not a vote?
this is what we are doing right now with the above-default = approval; equal-to-or-below-default = rejection. instead of trying to hide it in some strange bastardisation of Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, bring it out into the open. plus, we get to un-bastardise Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD while we are at it. > Requiring Q seconds would be much more reasonable, methinks. i agree with you, but we loose the ability to reject. am i against that? no. not at all. however, since we as a project feel that being able to say ``No'' is desirable, it is important to be able to maintain that. so - we set the bar for getting onto the ballot higher. it does make a two-stage voting process, sort of. this is also a bit more complicated that a simple yes/no and see which is prefered (either via approval or condorcet or plurailty or whatever). i see no problem with that, as we are not choosing which option to implement, but choosing which options appear. > >this takes out all possibilities of strategic voting, and applies the > >strategy to the proposal stage. at least the vote tallying method > >remains untainted :/ > > Yeah, but it got ten times worse overall. yes, there is that. so - does anyone have any better ideas? -john
