| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ConcentrationConcentrationPosted Dec 17, 2008 18:52 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Debian goes to the polls by alonz Parent article: Debian goes to the polls That is a thought which had occurred to me. My understanding of the Condorcet voting mechanism (fuzzier than it should be) is, though, that it makes it harder to truly split a vote in this manner. It seems like less of an issue than it would be in a more straightforward, first-past-the-post system. I think.
(Log in to post comments)
Concentration Posted Dec 17, 2008 19:59 UTC (Wed) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link] How do you calculate a supermajority in a Condorcet vote? Does it require a 3:1 margin over all of the other possibilities? If there are 3 roughly equivalent options, it seems likely to me that people who like one of them will like all of them, and thus will have them all ranked at the top, in a roughly random distribution. None of these options would then have a supermajority over any of the others.Ah, I've answered my own question by reading the Debian constitution. The "further discussion" choice is considered to be the default option, and any proposals with supermajority requirements must have a supermajority relative to that option. That's a reasonably sensible way of handling it.
|
|
||||||||||||