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

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Neil Roeth wrote:
> 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: 
>  > > 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)


my reading is that 4.1.2 requires a 3:1 supermajority to amend the
Constitution. A.6.7 is the implementation of the requirement.

>  > 	Is this complexity required?


according to A.3.1, yes. we must have this complexity.

since there is only one amendment, with only one option, we already
know the final form of the resolution. we could dispense with the A.3.1
vote and go straight to the A.3.2 vote. in that case, you must have a
Yes No and Further Discussion option.

i believe a clarification is in order:
1) Is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote?
2) if this is the A.3.2 vote:
 a) who decided that the A.3.1 vote was not required? how was that
    decision made?
 b) why does the ballot fail to comply with A.3.2?

> 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.


this may be the A.3.1 vote. in which case, this is a valid ballot. we
will have the A.3.2 vote subsequent to this vote, unless Further
Discussion wins this one.

References: Debian Constitution

4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
  4.1. Powers

    2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.

A. Standard Resolution Procedure

  A.3. Voting procedure
    1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
       separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
       combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
       Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
       procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
       quorum is required for an amendment.
    2. When the final form of the resolution has been determined it is
       voted on in a final ballot, in which the options are Yes, No and
       Further Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire
       procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period.

  A.6. Concorde Vote Counting

    7. If a supermajority is required the number of Yes votes in the
       final ballot is reduced by an appropriate factor. Strictly
       speaking, for a supermajority of F:A, the number of ballots which
       prefer Yes to X (when considering whether Yes Dominates X or X
       Dominates Yes) or the number of ballots whose first (remaining)
       preference is Yes (when doing STV comparisons for winner and
       elimination purposes) is multiplied by a factor A/F before the
       comparison is done. This means that a 2:1 vote, for example, means
       twice as many people voted for as against; abstentions are not

Reply to: