Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Scenario B:
>
> Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been
> 44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am
> opposed to the option.
>
> At this point; under my version; I can express my opinions
> with no fear of harming my candidate. Under your amendment; if I do
> not vote; the vote is nullified. However, if I vote against the
> option -- the option shall win!!
[...]
> This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC)
>
> With the relative order or rating of the other
> candidates unchanged, voting a candidate higher should
> never cause the candidate to lose, nor should voting a
> candidate lower ever cause the candidate to win.
Are you saying that votes against should not count towards quorum then?
Your argument makes no sense to me. There were 45 votes (quorum was
met). More than half were for. Why shouldn't for win?
The fact that 24 for votes and 21 against occurred before your vote
should be irrelevant. If the 21 votes against occurred before any for
votes, would you still claim the result was invalid?
It's beginning to feel like common sense has slipped away from this
whole issue.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: