<HTML><BODY>
<div> Doubtless this won't thread correctly.<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">Juho</span> said<br>
> Some observations.<br>
><br>
> The description talks only about the "yes" votes. Is the assumption<br>
> that the "no" votes mean "no action will be taken"?<br>
><br>
> If we are talking about approving a new law then this is quite<br>
> typical, but if we vote for example about whether we should send our<br>
> rocket to Mars or Venus, then both sides should be treated in the<br>
> same way.<br>
><br>
> In the described method repeated 45% yes, 55% no results do not lead<br>
> to final "no" (assuming super majority and new referendum levels 60%/<br>
> 40%). If we have only one rocket to send, voting first on sending the<br>
> rocket to Mars, then on sending it to Venus, then to Mars etc. is not<br>
> fair either. But maybe the method is not intended for this kind of<br>
> elections with two similar alternatives to choose from.<br>
><br>
<br>
I get the impression the vote would go something like:<br>
<br>
Initial scores = 0<br>
<br>
Round 1<br>
<br>
Mars: 45% +0 = 45 (-50 = -5)<br>
Venus: 55% +0 = 55 (-50 = +5)<br>
<br>
Round 2<br>
Mars: 45% -5 = 40 (-50 = -10)<br>
Venus: 55% +5 = 60 (-50 = +10)<br>
<br>
Round 3<br>
Mars: 45% -10= 35 (-50 = -15)<br>
Venus: 55% +10= 65 (-50 = +15)<br>
<br>
Round 4<br>
Mars: 45% -15= 30 (-50 = -15)<br>
Venus: 55% +15= 70 (-50 = +15)<br>
<br>
Venus wins as >2/3<br>
<br>
This means that a majority can get anything past if they stick to their<br>
guns, however, it will take lots of votes (spaced say 1 day apart).<br>
<br>
It also naturally scales the time spent debating based on how<br>
controversial the decision is.<br>
<br>
Handling multiple choices could be handled with approval voting. Using<br>
multiple rounds means that the tactics for approval are easier to use.<br>
<br>
For example, if you could use the following formula<br>
<br>
New Approval = 2/3 * ( Old Approval*3/4 + approval from vote )<br>
<br>
if 50% approve of an option, it will get<br>
<br>
Round 1:<br>
2/3*( 0 + 50) = 33%<br>
<br>
Round 2:<br>
2/3*(25+50) = 50%<br>
<br>
Round 3:<br>
2/3*(38+50) = 59%<br>
<br>
Round 4:<br>
<br>
2/3*(44+50) = 63<br>
<br>
At round N (with N -> <span class="correction" id="">inf</span>)<br>
<br>
Round N<br>
<br>
2/3*(50+50) = 66 and 2/3<br>
<br>
Round N+1<br>
<br>
2/3*(50+50) = 66 and 2/3<br>
<br>
I would suggest rounding upwards to the nearest percent. Ignoring rounding<br>
an option cannot get the <span class="correction" id="">supermajority</span> unless it has 50%+ approval.<br>
<br>
<br>
Alternatively, rounding down could be used and the <span class="correction" id="">supermajority</span> could be <br>
set to say 65% required.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">www</span>.<span class="correction" id="">wikocracy</span>.<span class="correction" id="">com</span></div>
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>