On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority requirements, given my favorite ballot: A: strike SC 5 B: trivial C: strike SC 5 + trivial D: further discussionIf my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I should do this because A.6.3 makes my vote for D count against B (and A) threetimes.Well, no you shouldn't, because you're increasingly likely to end upwith the default option winning, which is what you claim to want _least_.
No, it doesn't. My preferred option still has just as many votes over the default option.
I think I failed to get my point across. Let's say that we expect a close outcome between C and B, but with B slightly ahead. The main thing I want is to strike SC 5, but B is still a good result. So my honest preference is CABD. All three other options are better than the status quo, so I rank them as such in a sincere vote.
Now, I realize that under A.6.3, B and A need to both independently get thrice the votes of the converse. So, wanting C above those two, I decide to give the converse a vote. I vote CDAB. That isn't sincere, but it's smart.
(If you're really thinking about trying to avoid other options winning, then it's unlikely that "Further discussion" really is your last preference -- given that implies the opportunity to do a better job of advocating for your preferred option)
Further discussion == do nothing this vote, preserve the status quo. Even if further discussion loses, I can always post to -project, -devel, -vote, whatever to drum up support. I don't need further discussion to win to keep talking. And remember, I support the trivial editorial changes.
(Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the votingGR; and that we've had the GR on it, which has passed)
I know. I was part of those discussions after all. Don't recall this particular issue coming up, though.