Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)
> > Actually, if you're talking about a properly formed A.3(3) vote, where
> > you're voting on option A and independent option B, there should be
> > on the ballot:
> > Yes on A and B
> > Yes on A, no on B
> > Yes on B no on A
> > no on A, no on B
> > further discussion.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 11:46:55AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Okay, now consider the vote being proposed by Manoj and Branden, then
> one that has alternatives "Allow modification of foundational documents
> with 3:1 supermajority" and "Allow modification to all documents".
These are not independent options.
> Note that the discussion so far seems to indicate the issue will be
> resolved by a single vote with the options:
> [ ] Allow modification of foundati...
> [ ] Allow modification to all docu...
> [ ] Further discussion
> Is this a third way of allowing issues to be decided supposedly allowed
> by the constitution, with yet another different bias towards choosing
> a winner in corner cases?
These are not independent options. Note also that the constitution
allows for the caller of the vote to state what form the ballot
> Supposing "A" and "B" are contradictory in your example above (ie,
> "remove non-free" and "support non-free", or "modify 4.1.5 to say <foo>"
> and "modify 4.1.5 to say <bar>", what happens if "Yes on A, Yes on B"
> wins the vote?
That wasn't the case for your earlier example, in the message I
was responding to.
> Note if you have more than two real alternatives, you get an exponential
> increase in the number of options listed on the ballot; if these options
> are mutually exclusive almost all of these options will be incoherent.
> Consider the leadership elecions we've had, by section 4.1.1 and 4.2.1
> we use the the procedures outlined in appendix A to resolve them. Have
> the leader elections been invalid (since the ballots only had the various
> candidates and "further discussion" as options, and we were never given
> an option to vote "yes" or "no"), and if so, will future ones be
> conducted so we get to vote for:
> [ ] Yes to "Wichert as Leader", yes to "Ben Collins as leader",
> Yes to "Joel Klecker as Leader", yes to "Matthew Vernon as
> [ ] ...
> I was under the impression your interpretation of A.3(3) was mainly to
> make the previous votes we've had constitutional.
> I'm not seeing what relevance `YYY/YYN/YNY/YNN/...' votes have to this
> discussion at all. They're not something we've ever done, and they seem
> way to awkward to be anything we'd ever want to do.
I get the feeling you're not even trying to see how what I'm talking
about relates to what's said in the constitution. Certainly, you're
not quoting from the constitution in your "refutations" of my points.