On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:54:50AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > If the chair ranked them equally in his ballot, why should he express a > > different preference when it comes to the casting vote? > Oh, the obvious answer -- if the chair's preference didn't end up in the > tie, he'd have to explicitly vote from the remaining options. "Obvious", but wrong. We use Condorcet to enable fully expressing our preferences among all the ballot options, not just our first-choice preference. The chair using a casting vote between two tied options (or three, which is the problematic case) is expressing a preference for one over the other; if such a preference exists, the non-strategic vote is to express this same preference in the original ballot. The *only* use of a casting vote that is different from the original ballot is a strategic one, and we should never allow this. In the case described, the chair should just express the preference between the remaining options (perhaps by amending their vote, which is allowed so long as "the outcome is in doubt"), in which case the casting vote clause doesn't come into play at all. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature