[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

```Hi,

Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I
am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This
makes our vote method fail the monoticity criteria
(http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm). See Scenario 2 below.

I'll present two (perhaps contrived, but failing to make
quorum is not a very usual scenario in any case).

Scenario A:
Suppose the tech ctte has 10 members, and is trying to vote on
the rainbow vote. The quorum is 4. (If you recall, the rainbow vote

All 10 members vote -- and they all like like different
colors, except that two people like red. Most are indifferent about
the colors they did not chose, but they do not feel they should win
-- and express their preferences by either only voting for the color
of their choice.

In my version, since no option got the needed 4 votes, there
is no winner.

In this amendment, red wins -- even though only 2 of the 10
people voted for it (less than the quorum of 4). Red won, even though
8 out of 10 people did not want to see it as winner.

This seems wrong to me. This amendment seems to make it a
priority to make a decision -- any decision -- even if the number of
people preferring the result is less than the quorum number of
people.

Consider the same scenario with 100 voters, quorum 9; and 10
voting: even though only 2 people prefer red, it shall win.

Logically, I think, the sheer indifference of the voting
population would be better reflected by not selecting a winner.

Scenario B:

Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been
44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am
opposed to the option.

At this point; under my version; I can express my opinions
with no fear of harming my candidate. Under your amendment; if I do
not vote; the vote is nullified. However, if I vote against the
option -- the option shall win!!

If I do not vote, but some one else opposed to the option
votes before the vote ends --- the option wins (even though the vote
was against it)!!. If I had voted along with this other person, the
vote would have been a draw.

So, if two people opposed to the option do not vote; the
option loses. If either votes against the option, the option wins --
if they both vote against the option, the vote is a draw, and the
casting vote, if any, gets to decide.

This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC)

Statement of Criterion

With the relative order or rating of the other
candidates unchanged, voting a candidate higher should
never cause the candidate to lose, nor should voting a
candidate lower ever cause the candidate to win.

This is really bad.

manoj
--
I won't mention any names, because I don't want to get sun4's into
trouble...  :-) -- Larry Wall in <11333@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

```