Hallo,
actually, the discussion surrounding supermajorities
in Condorcet goes back to 2000. See e.g.:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/11/msg00156.html
Between 2000 and 2002, this issue was discussed
off-list resp. at the Debian-EM Joint Committee
mailing list. See also section 7 of my p
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:55:02PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> 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 requireme
Ean Schuessler wrote:
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone". From the
beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort the shape of the
organization and we wanted a safeguard against the system being gamed by a commercial organizatio
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
> an exploit of FPTP.
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone".
From the beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort
the sh
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Condorcet is orthogonal to the issue.
It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
an exploit of FPTP.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
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
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Oh gee, so the US is using Condorcet now?
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 discuss
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Perhaps you can propose some language that you think would unambiguously
> capture my position? I not only think the current language is unambiguous,
> I think the interpretation of "supersede" that has been tendered by the
> previous secretary is suffi
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 02:22:40PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Dec 20 17:51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > In my eyes, this argument applies to any situation where a supermajority
> > > might be formally required,
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:38:55PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> > Yes, I agree that supermajority requirements are a bad idea in
> > general.
> To understand the need for a supermajority all you have to do is look at
> American politics. A supermajority insures
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Yes, I agree that supermajority requirements are a bad idea in
> general.
To understand the need for a supermajority all you have to do is look at
American politics. A supermajority insures that a razor thin majority can't end
up doing something radically disagr
On Sat Dec 20 17:51, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > In my eyes, this argument applies to any situation where a supermajority
> > might be formally required, and in my opinion the corollary is that
> > supermajorities are a bad ide
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:48:43PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > if a majority of voters vote that we should put
> > Nvidia drivers in main, then your fundamental problem is that you have a
> > majority of people (or at le
13 matches
Mail list logo
