[EM] supermajority

[James Green-Armytage]

This is James Green-Armytage replying to Markus Schulze.

>Dear James Green-Armytage,
>please read:
>1) chapter "Super-Majorities" of http://www.condorcet.org/rp/details.shtml
>2) appendix 5 of
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/files/schulze1.zip 
>Markus Schulze


Dear Markus,

	Thank you very much for replying. I have read what you asked me to read.
I was not aware of those pieces, and I found them interesting. These ideas
are clearly very similar to what I have proposed more recently, but are
any of them identical?
	Here again is my primary proposal: First determine the winner of the base
method, then check to see if the winner is preferred to the status quo by
a supermajority. If it isn't, the status quo remains in place. This is a
relatively strict standard, but it cuts down on tactical ranking of the
status quo, which should be valuable in situations where a genuine
supermajority is sought. My opinion is that analysis of methods proposed
for use in high-stakes situations should focus on how the methods will
behave when voters pursue strategic incentives.
	I'm fairly sure that Blake's proposal is not identical to mine. As to
your proposal, it's a bit hard for me to read your mathematical language,
but it doesn't look like the same thing to me so far. Is it? Would you
mind translating your proposal into words?
	I see a basic question emerging: Should we first eliminate candidates not
preferred by a supermajority over the status quo, and then proceed with
the base method, or should we find the base winner first? Let me give
shorthand names to these two basic approaches: base-first supermajority
(B1SM) and qualification-first (Q1SM).
	There may be tricky tactical implications in both approaches... perhaps
we can try to untangle them. It seems that in B1SM, there may often be an
incentive to insincerely compromise in favor of an option that seems more
likely to win by supermajority over the status quo. In Q1SM, there may
often be an incentive to insincerely bury a candidate under the status
quo, in order to help a candidate other than the sincere base winner.
	I look forward to further inquiry in this area.

all my best,
James