Re: Dec 7 voting amendment draft
> > A.3. Voting procedure
> > 3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done
> > by public pronouncement) may arrange for independent ballots
> > to be held simultaneously, even (for example) using a single
> > voting message.
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 04:40:30PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote:
> does this sit well with section A.2.2? It reads:
>
> # The proposer or a sponsor of a motion may call for a vote on any or
> # all of the amendments individually or together; the proposer or
> # sponsor of an amendment may call for a vote only on that amendment and
> # related amendments.
>
> Perhaps section a.3.3 should refer to section a.2. One could append to
> a.3.3 something like, "The vote taker should work with the person(s)
> calling for the vote according to section a.2."
Thanks for noticing that. It was my intention to require that all
related options be voted on in a single ballot [because that's the way
this voting system is designed to work], so I'll propose updating A.2.2.
> > A.6 Vote Counting
> >
> > 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all
> > options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered preferred
> > to all unranked options. Unranked options are not considered
> > preferred to other unranked options.
> Maybe the final sentence should be worded "Unranked options are
> considered to be ranked equally to other unranked options"? Or
> "considered equal to"?
>
> Perhaps, replacing two sentences, "Options left unranked by the voter are
> considered to be ranked equally with one another, and below any ranked
> options."
That's a good way of phrasing this, thanks.
> I prefer the punctuation that you used in section A.6.2.a to the
> punctuation used in b and c. "An option A is ..." rather than "An
> option, A, is..." In any case, they should be consistent.
I'll get rid of these commas, thanks.
> > A.6.2.e. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
> "If a majority of n:1 is required for some option A, ..."?
Ok.
> Another issue: would it be a good thing to give the various functions in
> section A.6.2.c-e meaningful word or phrase-long names, rather than
> single-letter names (e.g. change V(A,B) to prefers(A,B))? Or to define
> the functions in the text? "..if the number of voters preferring A to B
> (notated V(A,B)) is greater than.."
Uh...
I guess that's different from what I was doing before (for example,
the Nov 16 draft), and I think I'm more comfortable explicitly stating
what's supposed to be happening than relying on implicit expressions.
I'll try this approach, if I can think of a good way of expressing things.
> Perhaps the distinction between the default option and other options
> should be made in section A.6.2.c instead of in section e. It could
> then read something like
>
> "c. Given two options A and B, to determine whether A defeats B,
> use test 1 if neither A nor B is the default option. If one of
> them is the default option but the other has no supermajority
> requirement, again use test 1. If one of them is the default
> option and the other has a supermajority requirement, use test
> 2.
>
> 1. A defeats B if the number of voters preferring A to B
> (notated V(A,B)) is greater than V(B,A), and the (A,B)
> defeat has not been dropped.
>
> 2. If A has a supermajority requirement of n:1, blah
> blah..."
>
> This wording is much more verbose but might be clearer, in that it
> sticks the parts that should be simple in their own little simple world.
> Trying to reword it has seriously increased my respect for Raul's draft.
> BTW, thanks for your work at this, Raul! It is important for our
> project.
Hmm... I'm not sure what problem you're working on solving here?
[And thanks for the kudos -- but honestly, the help I've gotten from
other people is a huge reason the current draft is as good as it is.]
> > A.6.3.a. A defeat is in the Schwartz set if both of its options are
> > in the Schwartz set.
> maybe this should be "A defeat (A,B) is in the Schwartz set if both of
> options A and B are members of the Schwartz set."
Actually, I had meant to change this phrase entirely -- Andrew Pimlott
had suggested "drop the weakest of the defeats involving members of the
Schwartz set" for the introductory part of A.6.3 (the first one -- the
second one should be labeled A.6.4), and I had meant to use that mode
of expression.
Thanks again,
--
Raul
Reply to: