Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]

[Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net>]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> > Just nitpicking, but is our Condorcet method for running election
> > suitable for voting when an (ordered) set of result is expected? Isn't
> > it targeted at finding only one winner (if it exists)?  Not a big
> 
>  It's targeted to finding the one winner, but it's easy to adapt to finding
> a list: get the winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the
> new winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the new winner,
> etc.

I never proposed that, for reasons made obvious by other people in the
thread. My ammendment to the standard resolution procedure was this:

+   <li> If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is
+        created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength.    

Instant disclaimer - I don't know if this is clear enough, I don't know
voting method syntax.

The point is that the list of options is *sorted*, and then N are taken
as winners. It's not run in a loop of N iterations.

And by "sorted" I mean the thing we get from the beat matrix, such as in:

http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001#outcome

If for example in that outcome we wanted to pick four candidates, it
seems to me that they would be Hocever, McIntyre, Herzog, Verhelst.
If for example we wanted to pick seven, we couldn't go past the first six.

In that graph, no two options happened to be at the same horizontal level.
If by any chance we got that situation, my ammendment further stated:

+        If there are multiple winners with the same ranking which exceed
+        the desired length of the list, the length of the list is extended
+        to include the entire last set of multiple winners.

I thought that that made sense.

Others?

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.