On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0600, Hubert Chan wrote: [...] >> > Maybe I don't quite understand your concern correctly, but isn't this >> > one of the advantages of using Condorcet? i.e. if we had points [1-3] >> > on the same ballot as points [1-4], even though the number of votes for >> > [1-3] compared to NOTA would obviously be higher than the number of >> > votes for [1-4] compared to NOTA, the thing that would determine whether >> > [1-3] wins, or [1-4], would be the ranking between those two options >> > (assuming both win compared to NOTA). So those who agree with point 4 >> > should rank [1-4] higher than [1-3] (and those who don't would obviously >> > rank it lower). Hence if more people agree with #4 than disagree with >> > it, then [1-4] should win over [1-3]. >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/10/msg00168.html > Sorry, let's get a more refined reference here; the thread following from > that particular post is long and scary, and mostly irrelevant to this > discussion. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/11/msg00051.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/11/msg00066.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/11/msg00074.html Hmm... interesting. Thanks for the references. I don't quite fully understand it yet, so I'll have to think about it more. But the attack seems to depend on the supermajority requirement. I'm not sure if it still works if a simple majority is required. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
