On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 08:54:30AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> For a trivial example, consider a vote split three-ways between
> - cabd
> - badc
> - dacb
>
> Run it through Condorcet: A is unbeaten, thus the winner.
Minor nit:
A is unbeaten and A beats all the other options, thus is the win
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 08:54:30AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> For a trivial example, consider a vote split three-ways between
> - cabd
> - badc
> - dacb
>
> Run it through Condorcet: A is unbeaten, thus the winner.
Minor nit:
A is unbeaten and A beats all the other options, thus is the win
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> non-Amendment GR passes if it is the CpSSD winner, but an Amendment is
> required to be the Condorcet winner (vote to be held again, after a
> discussion period, if an Amendment is the CpSSD winner but not the
> Condorcet winner), is that a supermajority procedure? It is def
Please forgive my late reply. I'm on vacation, and haven't had access
to email since Friday. I should bow out of this discussion until I am
back from vacation and have more reliable email access.
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Obviously
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> non-Amendment GR passes if it is the CpSSD winner, but an Amendment is
> required to be the Condorcet winner (vote to be held again, after a
> discussion period, if an Amendment is the CpSSD winner but not the
> Condorcet winner), is that a supermajority procedure? It is def
Jochen Voss wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I agree with this. But doesn't the same argument apply
to at least [5]?
Very possibly. (I'm out of town at the moment, and don't remember
exactly what [5] was). But I had other issues with [5] as well w
Please forgive my late reply. I'm on vacation, and haven't had access
to email since Friday. I should bow out of this discussion until I am
back from vacation and have more reliable email access.
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Obviously -
Jochen Voss wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I agree with this. But doesn't the same argument apply
to at least [5]?
Very possibly. (I'm out of town at the moment, and don't remember
exactly what [5] was). But I had other issues with [5] as well wh
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:42:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think it is self-deluding that a 3:1 supermajority, let alone a 2:1
> supermajority, is an accurate "approximation" of "unanimity".
If we were trying for unanimity, we'd say so. We're not. There's a scale
from "unanimous", throu
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:42:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think it is self-deluding that a 3:1 supermajority, let alone a 2:1
> supermajority, is an accurate "approximation" of "unanimity".
If we were trying for unanimity, we'd say so. We're not. There's a scale
from "unanimous", throu
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:42:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think it is self-deluding that a 3:1 supermajority, let alone a 2:1
> supermajority, is an accurate "approximation" of "unanimity".
>
> If we have 1000 developers, this means up to 250 or 333 developers,
> respectively, may be st
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:41:53AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:53:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't undertand what you're trying to tell me here.
>
> > Are you saying dropping supermajority handling from the proposed A.6
> > will sink the proposal, regardle
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:42:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think it is self-deluding that a 3:1 supermajority, let alone a 2:1
> supermajority, is an accurate "approximation" of "unanimity".
>
> If we have 1000 developers, this means up to 250 or 333 developers,
> respectively, may be st
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:41:53AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:53:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't undertand what you're trying to tell me here.
>
> > Are you saying dropping supermajority handling from the proposed A.6
> > will sink the proposal, regardle
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:13:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What do you propose? Isn't the scope of the discussion our voting
> > > system? Do you propose to limit suffrage within the Debian Project?
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > At the moment, I'm
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:13:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What do you propose? Isn't the scope of the discussion our voting
> > > system? Do you propose to limit suffrage within the Debian Project?
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > At the moment, I'm
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:11:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Yeah, in the case you're positing, there'd be "explain why the elitist
> cabal are refusing to inact the will of the people as has been clearly
> expressed". Having "group responsible will ignore the outcome of the GR"
> as one of you
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:11:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Yeah, in the case you're positing, there'd be "explain why the elitist
> cabal are refusing to inact the will of the people as has been clearly
> expressed". Having "group responsible will ignore the outcome of the GR"
> as one of you
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:13:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What do you propose? Isn't the scope of the discussion our voting
> > system? Do you propose to limit suffrage within the Debian Project?
>
> At the moment, I'm pr
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:08:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of
> proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people
> see in your proposal and change your proposal to avoid those drawbacks;
> likewise, when ot
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:04:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I argue that we do want neutrality. It's the same thing as arguing
> > against supermajorities.
>
> What kind of neutrality do we want?
The kind that makes it rewa
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:20:00PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think we could have this benefit even without a supermajority
> requirement, because our voting system is more sophisticated than
> the yes/no model you're using. Suppose an option wins with only 51:49
> support. Just like in y
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:15:52AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
> I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
> see there's another vote on the way. There's always
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:13:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What do you propose? Isn't the scope of the discussion our voting
> > system? Do you propose to limit suffrage within the Debian Project?
>
> At the moment, I'm pr
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:08:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of
> proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people
> see in your proposal and change your proposal to avoid those drawbacks;
> likewise, when ot
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:04:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I argue that we do want neutrality. It's the same thing as arguing
> > against supermajorities.
>
> What kind of neutrality do we want?
The kind that makes it rewa
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:20:00PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think we could have this benefit even without a supermajority
> requirement, because our voting system is more sophisticated than
> the yes/no model you're using. Suppose an option wins with only 51:49
> support. Just like in y
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:15:52AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
> I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
> see there's another vote on the way. There's always
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
see there's another vote on the way. There's always plenty of more
urgent stuff to do.
Richard Braakman
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
see there's another vote on the way. There's always plenty of more
urgent stuff to do.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRI
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> > #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> > a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
>
> restore from backup.
>
> restore from snapshot.debia
Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
restore from backup.
restore from snapshot.debian.org
not that hard.
-john
On Nov 24, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> > passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> > substantially, and this requires proponents to maint
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> substantially, and this requires proponents to maintain a long-term
> interest in passage. It
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> > #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> > a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
>
> restore from backup.
>
> restore from snapshot.debia
Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
restore from backup.
restore from snapshot.debian.org
not that hard.
-john
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Nov 24, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> > passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> > substantially, and this requires proponents to maint
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> substantially, and this requires proponents to maintain a long-term
> interest in passage. It
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
Chris> I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
Chris> possibility.
Chris> It also encourages proponents to
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
Chris> I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
Chris> possibility.
Chris> It also encourages proponents to
On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
possibility.
A scenario: Assume controversial subject X arises and the developer
community is evenly split, pro/con. Vote #1 occurs. 6
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:48:05AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
> >
> > [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
> > required to override "important decisions". This h
On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
possibility.
A scenario: Assume controversial subject X arises and the developer
community is evenly split, pro/con. Vote #1 occurs. 6
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:48:05AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
> >
> > [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
> > required to override "important decisions". This h
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In other words, supermajority options are eliminated only when their
> weakest defeats against schwartz set options are eliminated, and we have
> a bias towards the default option in some (bu
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Cases where the default option defeats another option are never the
> weakest defeats.
Huh? Can you explain this to me? Why could this be true?
Confused,
Jochen
--
Omm
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 11:01:32AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > A = change the scoial contract and remove non-free
> > (Requires supermajority)
> > B = try to nurture and increase non-free
> > (Requires no supermajo
ty.
Cases where the default option defeats another option are never the
weakest defeats.
In other words, supermajority options are eliminated only when their
weakest defeats against schwartz set options are eliminated, and we have
a bias towards the default option in some (but not all) circumstances.
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In other words, supermajority options are eliminated only when their
> weakest defeats against schwartz set options are eliminated, and we have
> a bias towards the default option in some (bu
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Cases where the default option defeats another option are never the
> weakest defeats.
Huh? Can you explain this to me? Why could this be true?
Confused,
Jochen
--
Omm
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 11:01:32AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > A = change the scoial contract and remove non-free
> > (Requires supermajority)
> > B = try to nurture and increase non-free
> > (Requires no supermajo
ty.
Cases where the default option defeats another option are never the
weakest defeats.
In other words, supermajority options are eliminated only when their
weakest defeats against schwartz set options are eliminated, and we have
a bias towards the default option in some (but not all) circumstances.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of damaging
> >Condorcet voting, than the discussed supermajority strategies have.
>
> This is a very interesti
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of damaging
> >Condorcet voting, than the discussed supermajority strategies have.
>
> This is a very interesti
On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
>
> [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
> required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
> simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any
On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
>
> [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
> required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
> simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:45:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What are we doing in all these discussions if it isn't "bargaining"?
Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of
proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people
see in your proposal a
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not?
> > >
> > > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system.
> >
> > Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant
> > competence on all issues?
On Fri, Nov 22,
> > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated
> > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain
> > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all
> > options the same, and therefore lose neutrality.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:14:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can you elaborate on this, please?
Ok...
They're not voting strategies in the classic sense, sin
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> We've already seen what is probably insincere voting in the
Branden> DPL elections (a lot of people ranked the default option
Branden> second, which means "my guy or nobody" -- I doubt any *two*
Branden> of the candidates pro
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
Can you elaborate on this, please?
--
G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds
Debian GNU/Linux |combative and
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not?
> >
> > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system.
>
> Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant
> competence on all issues?
What do you propose? Isn't t
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:45:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What are we doing in all these discussions if it isn't "bargaining"?
Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of
proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people
see in your proposal a
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated
> the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain
> actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all
> options the same,
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not?
> > >
> > > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system.
> >
> > Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant
> > competence on all issues?
On Fri, Nov 22,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:53:48PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> [6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
> to change the constitution or social contract. We could use
> something like: every voter may just say "yes" or "no" to the
> proposed change (i.e. t
> > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated
> > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain
> > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all
> > options the same, and therefore lose neutrality.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:14:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can you elaborate on this, please?
Ok...
They're not voting strategies in the classic sense, sin
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> We've already seen what is probably insincere voting in the
Branden> DPL elections (a lot of people ranked the default option
Branden> second, which means "my guy or nobody" -- I doubt any *two*
Branden> of the candidates pro
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
Can you elaborate on this, please?
--
G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds
Debian GNU/Linux |combative and
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not?
> >
> > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system.
>
> Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant
> competence on all issues?
What do you propose? Isn't t
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated
> the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain
> actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all
> options the same,
Hi,
Jochen Voss:
> * If we really would want to cover the case of several
>competing proposals we could use a two step mechanism: we
>could first determine a candidate via Condorect voting with
>CpSCC (without any supermajority stuff) and then use [6] the
>decide whether we want t
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:53:48PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> [6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
> to change the constitution or social contract. We could use
> something like: every voter may just say "yes" or "no" to the
> proposed change (i.e. t
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
>
> Yes. Anything more than half is "most", by definition.
>
Not in my book. Sorry.
> consensus
>n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general
>agreement}]
>
The dictionary where you found that definition needs to be taken out
> If we would require a quorum (in the sense of Anthony Towns draft,
> i.e. we would require some minimal total number of votes) INSTEAD
> of a supermajority, I would like this:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of da
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
> [1] ... [5]
I did not think much about this until now.
But what do you think about
[6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
t
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement
> (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes
> the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for
> our current set of d
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> I'm assuming that we can describe an implementation of supermajority
> with CpSSD where supermajority does not encourage insincere voting.
WRT changes to the Constitution, a Tyrrany of the Status Quo may not be
a bad thing. my sole purpose in bringing up the study was to ma
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> As to why I prefer (2) over the rest... CpSSD is well-defined and
> reasonably well studied when all votes are counted equally. I find the
> idea of scaling votes involving particular options to change it enough
> that its
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least
> > > half of the voting populous.
> >
> > [1] Who is the voting populous?
>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:11:12PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> d
Hi,
Jochen Voss:
> * If we really would want to cover the case of several
>competing proposals we could use a two step mechanism: we
>could first determine a candidate via Condorect voting with
>CpSCC (without any supermajority stuff) and then use [6] the
>decide whether we want t
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
>
> Yes. Anything more than half is "most", by definition.
>
Not in my book. Sorry.
> consensus
>n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general
>agreement}]
>
The dictionary where you found that definition needs to be taken out
> If we would require a quorum (in the sense of Anthony Towns draft,
> i.e. we would require some minimal total number of votes) INSTEAD
> of a supermajority, I would like this:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of da
Raul Miller wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change.
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least
> > half of the voting populous.
>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:56:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> By the way, guys, it's spelled "populace".
>
> "Populous" is an adjective meaning "highly populated".
Thanks, that's not something I would have looked up on my own.
> > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not?
>
> I'd say t
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
> [1] ... [5]
I did not think much about this until now.
But what do you think about
[6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
t
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:15:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Except I have not found the paper to be convincing; I think
>> that the underlying assumptions are about mechanisms that are far
>> different from ours, and
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions
May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively
responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are
trea
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement
> (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes
> the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for
> our current set of d
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:15:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Except I have not found the paper to be convincing; I think
> that the underlying assumptions are about mechanisms that are far
> different from ours, and that this difference is enough to invalidate
> the conclusion reach
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:23:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change.
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> I'm assuming that we can describe an implementation of supermajority
> with CpSSD where supermajority does not encourage insincere voting.
WRT changes to the Constitution, a Tyrrany of the Status Quo may not be
a bad thing. my sole purpose in bringing up the study was to ma
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> As to why I prefer (2) over the rest... CpSSD is well-defined and
> reasonably well studied when all votes are counted equally. I find the
> idea of scaling votes involving particular options to change it enough
> that its
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions
>
>May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively
>responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are
>treated equally) and
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least
> > > half of the voting populous.
> >
> > [1] Who is the voting populous?
>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:11:12PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> d
Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least
> half of the voting populous.
[1] Who is the voting populous?
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think this is not really a matter of screwing up, this is a
>> matter of, in some cases, avoiding the tyranny of the majority;
Branden> ...a platitude di
Raul Miller wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change.
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least
> > half of the voting populous.
>
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
