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

Re: Discussion - Proposed Constitution - voting part 2

On 09-Oct-98 Ian Jackson wrote:
> A.6(5)(iii):
>   This elimination procedure is repeated, moving down ballot papers to
>   2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. preferences as required, until one option gets
>   more than half of the `first' preferences.
> It seems to me to be clear that the intent is that if a ballot has no
> remaining preferences then it doesn't count when considering which
> option might have "more than half of the `first' preferences".  Such a
> ballot couldn't be said to have a "`first' preference" any more,
> surely ?
Actually, I've seen the STV method done in such a way that after a ballot
loses all it's "first preferences" it is still counted as a no-preference (ie.
as an abstention of sorts) hence my question.  I think any questions on this
can be settled by president but, as of yet, we don't have president so I
thought I'd ask.

> A.6(8):
>    8.If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
>    which prefer the winning option to the default option.  If there
>    are not then the default option wins after all. For votes requiring
>    a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used when
>    checking whether the quorum has been reached.
> The "winning option" here refers to the outcome of steps 1-7, clearly,
I've learned, the hard way, that "clearly" usually doesn't apply to things like
this.  They turn out to be worm holes to cause problems :(

> and 8 is intended to _modify_ the outcome.  So, if Concorde doesn't
> produce a clear-cut answer we use STV amongst the remaining options,
> and then we have a putative `winner'.  If this winner didn't actually
> have enough ballots which prefer it to the default, then the default
> option is declared the winner.  There's nothing saying we should go
> and restart the ballot counting with STV instead, or something.  The
Yes.  I saw my mistake as I was reading and rereading the constituion.  But
since nobody commented on the thread, I just let the matter drop instead of
correcting my assuptions to the list.

* http://benham.net/index.html                                          *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
*    Darren Benham     * Version: 3.1                                   *
*  <gecko@benham.net>  * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
*                      * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS--   *
*   Debian Developer   * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++   *
*  <gecko@debian.org>  * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+                            *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*

Reply to: