[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 Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:22:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Yes. Take a single vote that ranks:
> > 	[ 2 ] A (change the constitution)
> > 	[ 1 ] B (do such and such, don't change the constitution)
> > 	[ 3 ] S (don't change anything, including the constitution)
> > You'll note that B is preferred to A: thus it's a vote which prefers not
> > modifying the constitution.
> Agreed.
> > You'll note that A is preferred to S: thus it's a vote *for* modifying
> > the constitution.
> You'll note that this preference is secondary.

No, actually I won't.

> > So yes, I think that's an unhelpful distinction to try to make.
> Explain to me, again, why the first preference is no more important
> than the other preferences?

You're mixing and matching what you apply the word "preference" to. The
option ranked first is more important than the others because the voter
has expressed that it's preferred to all the others. That is the following
preferences are expressed:

	B > A
	B > S

The option ranked second, however only gets:

	A > S

But "A > S" counts just as much as "B > S" or "B > A". "A" however,
doesn't count as much as "B", because, well, "B > A".

> > Conveniently, your options aren't independent enough to actually be
> > decided in separate ballots in any fair way (at least as far as I
> > can tell [0]).
> Add in the missing option if that makes things work better.

It makes them more complicated, so I'll avoid it unless you make me,
just like I tried avoiding having independent options...

> > Please rate your preferences for the final form of the draft resolution:
> >       [ _ ] P
> >       [ _ ] P+A
> >       [ _ ] P+B
> >       [ _ ] P+A+B
> >       [ _ ] P+A+C
> >       [ _ ] P+B+C
> >       [ _ ] Further Discussion
> >
> > Should P be the final form of the draft resolution, please rate your
> > preferences for its acceptance:
> >       [ _ ] Yes
> >       [ _ ] No
> >       [ _ ] Further Discussion
> >
> > Should P+A be the fin...
> > (etc)
> This looks like one amendment ballot and six other ballots, one which
> would be a final ballot, and five which would be neither amendment
> ballots nor final ballots.  

Not exactly. It's one amendment ballot and the final ballot repeated six
times, one for each different form the final form of the draft resolution
can take so that each voter can "vote differently in the final ballot
for each of the possible forms of the final draft resolution".

> Also.. the constitution does specify that the user be able to vote
> differently >>in the final ballot<< for each of the forms of final draft
> resolution.  You're only allowing the user to vote on one form of the
> final draft resolution in the final ballot.

*Oh*, is that how you're reading this?

You seem to be saying that should be read as:

	``In the final ballot, each voter must be able to vote for each of
	  the possible forms of the final draft resolution.''

whereas I'm saying it should be read as, ummm:

	``If the amendment and final ballots are combined, then there are
	  multiple forms of the final resolution that are possible. For
	  each of these, each voter must be able to express a *different*
	  preference for the options in the final vote (the Y/N/F one),
	  even though it won't be clear which of these preferences will
	  be used when the voter votes.''

Can you see how I'm breaking that clause up to read it that way?

You seem to be joing the ``to vote'' with the ``for each'' to make it
``to vote for'', while I'm treating ``vote differently'' to stand alone,
and the ``for each'' to mean they get to ``vote'' many times, each of
which may well be ``different'', and what you're voting for or against
is only mentioned in the previous clause.

a ``it's a vase, you moron!'' j

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: pgpJVBhAesJ_k.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: