On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 10:58:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 10:07:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Consider another possible vote outcome:
> > 60 votes A
> > 21 votes BAF
> > in which case:
> Yep -- A didn't win by 3 to 1.
> 3:1 supermajority requires a near unanomous agreement among those voting.
This works okay when the alternative selected is the status-quo or further
discussion (which is what the constitution describes).
In the above case, though, you've got *completely* unanimous agreement
that A is acceptable, and an almost 3:1 majority that says A is the best
option.
Following the constitution, you'd have two votes:
Which form should the general resolution take? ABF
which A would win comfortably by a clear majority (the supermajority stuff
only matters for the final vote, see A.6(7)), and
The developers resolve that "A": YNF
which would presumably have a unanimous "yes" vote.
The idea is to end up with a voting process that's at least as fair, but
gets the result after a single vote (so that people aren't encouraged
to vote for something they don't really prefer in hopes of making sure
something else fails).
If you consider how:
60 votes, ABF
30 votes, BFA
might turn out under the current constitution (again where A requires
3:1 supermajority, B requires simple majority to pass), you'd have:
A dominates B, 60 to 30
A dominates F, 60 to 30
B dominates F, 90 to 0
in which case at the moment, you'd have an initial vote which A would win
(simple majority, A dominates all others), and a final vote, where the result
would probably be something like:
60 votes: YFN or YNF (the 60 people who prefer A to everything else)
30 votes: NFY or FNY or FYN (the 30 people who prefer F to A)
which would be reduced to:
F dominates Y, 30 to 20
and results in either an F or N victory.
Just reducing the votes for A by 3 right at the start would result in:
B dominates A, 30 to 20
F dominates A, 30 to 20
B dominates F, 90 to 0
and B would win by dominating all others, in spite of a 2:1 majority
prefering A.
Another example would be votes something like:
60 votes ABF
20 votes BAF
15 votes BFA
which would leave you with, respectively:
A dominates B, 60 to 35
A dominates F, 80 to 15
B dominates F, 95 to 0
and a final vote something like:
~80 votes for
~15 votes against
which is a successful 3:1 supermajority, so it'd pass.
Dividing the initial vote, you'd end up with:
B dominates A, 35 to 20
A dominates F, ~26 to 15
B dominates F, 95 to 0
B wins by dominating all others.
> > > > example:
> > > > 30 ABC
> > > > 25 BCA
> > > > 35 CAB
> > Well, under A.6(3) your first action is to discard all options (since
> > they're all dominated by at least one other) and ignore references
> > to them in ballots.
> If you want to proceed down that route, either you eliminate B (since
> A:B domination "dominates" all the other pairwise matchings) or you
> postpone handling of this step because it's trivial.
A.6
2. Option A is said to Dominate option B if strictly more ballots
prefer A to B than prefer B to A.
Ballot options can dominate each other; the degree of domination isn't
taken into account by the constitution, although it is by the various
Condorcet schemes out there (there's some references at the start of
this thread).
> If that turns out to be too ambiguous, perhaps we need a constitutional
> ammendment?
That's the general idea.
> > A.6(4) doesn't apply since nothing dominates all others, A.6(5)
> > doesn't apply since there aren't any options remaining. A.6(6) could
> > apply, I suppose, in which case any of A, B or C would win depending
> > on what the DPL decided.
> Nothing in the constitution says A.6(5) must happen after A.6(3).
I'm not sure how that'd make sense. A.6(5) only applies if there's
`more than one option remaining', but presumably that means there has
to have been a chance that some options have already been eliminated,
which can only happen if A.6(3) is applied. The "now" also seems to
imply that these options are expected to be done in order. *shrug*
> > And I'm not trying to describe what the constitution says happens
> > because I think it's broken. I'm trying to understand what *should*
> > happen.
> Then why did you say (near the top) that you're not referring to the
> system described in the constitution?
I'm more interested in seeing what the constitution *should* say, not what
it does say, atm.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpI5teDTdC2J.pgp
Description: PGP signature