Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> You actually propose two separate amendments. Please don't do that, it
> smells of politics. :-/
the changes are related, if just 2 was changed, then the majority
requirements in 3 have an undesired side-effect.
let me find that message . .
= http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200305/msg00046.html
=
= If no supermajority is required the majority ratio is 1,
= which means that the option is dropped if V(A,D) < V(D,A)+1.
= So this implements a quorum of 1 in the sense of the original
= draft for all options.
> The point of wording it the "old" way was that any option which is ranked
> below the default by a majority is removed before starting the algorithm.
Not correct. The original proposal simply threw out the voter's intent
iff the option did not have R+1 people ranking it higher than default.
this is where the concept of quorum is being mis-applied. this is what
is being fixed.
> That is intentional; otherwise, a case can be constructed where such an
> option could win, which is Not Good.
a much easier and likely case can be constructed where an otherwise
winning option is dropped before consideration, which is Even Worse.
-john
Reply to: