Re: Hybrid Theory
Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> Well, you cannot say that. If the quorum is met, then the option wins.
> It is because you voted, sure, but if you had not voted, then the
> election is not valid, and you cannot say that you you did loose.
You can, actually -- your hypothetical preference was for the DEFAULT
option, aka Further Discussion, which is special; a victory for the
default option is akin to a non-election.
> Alternatively, you could say that if the quorum is meet exactly, then
> the winning vote has to win by at least two votes, and you get the
> monotonicity criterion for free (well in the letter, maybe not in the
> principle though).
Doesn't help; in Raul's example, you get the same problem with counts
of, say, 24 and 21.
> A, i suppose you mean it is valid if the quorum is met ? Since it is
> very low, it will be met most of the time.
True, but so what? This is a theoretical discussion.
> > Imagine that quorum is relevant at some point in time: imagine that we
> > have a set of elections which default because they don't meet quorum.
>
> Given the current low quorum, then i would much prefer that a vote which
> does not met quorum is further discussed or even abandoned altogether.
Again, that's what a victory for the default option MEANS.
> > At this point: you wouldn't be certain that the some elections will meet
> > quorum. Neither could you be certain that voting against an amendment
> > in some elections would not cause that amendment to win.
>
> Well, the problem with that is that it really is a chancy things, and
> suppose you know already a lot about the outcome of the vote to use such
> a strategy. I suppose only the vote secretary has some such power.
Er, I think Raul's point is that if some (unprivileged) developer
favoring the default option does get word of an election whose turnout
might be low, he or she may have trouble deciding whether to vote for
the default option or not to vote at all if quota is per-election
rather than per-option (vs. default).
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Finger amu@monk.mit.edu (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
Reply to: