Ean Schuessler wrote: > You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal > to the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one > and other conducted via a ranking. The presence of "further discussion" > effectively provides a "we should do this, we should not do this" vote for > each choice. The question is "what is the 3:1 majority against?" If the > majority is between "further discussion" and the 3:1 controlled result then I > can see how it is the same as a "do this, don't do this" vote. If it is > between the next closest runner up, then it seems poorly defined.
So, can't this be fixed by just changing the algorithm from "drop all options which don't pass majority requirements, then determine the winner" to "determine the winner, then check whether the winner passes majority requirements"? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
