Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

[Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
> I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
> over C.  I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
> over A or avoided ranking either of them.  I should have voted -1-2.

It wouldn't have done you any good -- that case is only considered should
it come down to choosing between A and C -- ie, if your preferred options
of B and D have already been eliminated.

It's also considered should there be a circular tie, but such a thing has
never actually happened in Debian.

> There definitely is a strategy to our voting method.  Every rank counts
> for something.  Because someone deploys a strategy to their voting
> choices does not mean they vote insincerely.  I'm sincerely disappointed
> in the outcome of the last GR, but I support the method in which it was
> conducted.

Actually deploying a strategy does mean your voting insincerely. By
definition. Voting insincerely shouldn't be taken as an insult.

> If we can prove that the system has flaws, then let's fix them, or at
> least minimize the problems through procedure.

That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR doesn't
indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time we have two
options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be disappointed.

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.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda