Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR
On Jun 9, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:52:53 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:27:11PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
> >> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >> > > [ ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment [ ] Choice 2:
> >> > > Further Discussion
> >> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
> >> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >> Adding a "no" option would make things very complicated. You see,
> >> the "yes" option needs a supermajority.
>
> > Actually, we'd handle it this way:
>
> > * First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass
> > (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original
> > proposal and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since
> > there weren't any amendments that received enough seconds,
> > it would look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't
> > require a supermajority or a quorum.
>
> > * Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote" (A.3.2)
> > whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot
> > being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one
> > requires a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and
> > a supermajority to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass
> > (A.6.7)
>
> >> Our voting system is currently not able to deal with that in a sane
> >> way; we'd need to upgrade it somehow first.
>
> Is this complexity required? Are there people who are feeling
> seriously constrained by the inability to say No as opposed to
> further discussion (especially since there is no way you can prevent
> further discussion even if you say no -- there is no way to stop
> discussion)?
I'm bothered both by the lack of a "No" option, and the cavalier attitude to
something explicitly spelled out in the Constitution; that says there must be
"Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion" options in plain language. Maybe you
could point out the part of the Constitution that says it may be overridden by
feelings and whims. If that's how it's going to work, then we might as well
skip the current resolution, since for future votes we can just decide at the
time to handle voting by whatever means "feel" best.
I also find it ironic that just about the simplest kind of vote you can
imagine (yes or no) is considered complex.
--
Neil Roeth
Reply to: