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

Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)

On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 10:02:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > 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.

Nor are "Debian will have nothing to do with non-free ever again"
and "Debian will continue to maintain non-free, but will do it on
unofficial.debian.org instead of ftp-master". So I don't see what
relevance the above has at all.

I think I've consistently ignored the possibility of actual independent
alternatives in a single resolution throughout this whole thread.

> 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.

Well, you seem willing to infer whole vistas of implied conditions from
single words, and seem to take the position that anything not explicitly
forbidden in the constitution is implicitly allowed, so I don't really
see much point discussing what the constitution says, since I can't see
any objective basis for analysis remaining, and you have the high-ground
as far as subjective analysis goes (since you have some possibility of
actually acting as secretary).

I'm much more interested in how we should conduct votes in future, anyway.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
                       -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001

Attachment: pgpBk2Ll1GfWZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: