Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:27:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > It is the same ballot, repeated six times. Is that really difficult to
> > > understand?
> > They're not the same ballot because they don't have the same options
> > on them.
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:45:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Actually, they do have the same options on them: Yes, No, and Further
> Discussion.
>
> The final ballot is precisely:
>
> ``Shall this resolution be passed: Y/N/F''
>
> Since at the time it's voted on there are six different forms the
> resolution can take, and voters are required to be able to vote on
> this final ballot differently depending on which final form is chosen,
> the ballot has to be repeated six times.
I've been asserting that only one of these is the final ballot,
and that the other five therefore, are not. I don't see that
you've addressed that yet.
> > I suppose that means this conversation is near close.
>
> Well, I was hoping that we'd be able to achieve some consensus here,
> but the only objective technical standard for argument you seem willing
> to accept seems to be minimal wording changes to the constitution,
> so I guess there really is no point.
Oh?
I try to look at whether an interpretation fits within what the
constitution says.
I try to look at whether there are other intepretations which would also
fit within the constitution.
I try to look at whether the interpretation would say that some part of
the constitution could never have an effect (that's a pretty good sign
that I'm thinking something different than what the original writer
was thinking).
I try to look at the intepretation itself, for inconsistencies.
I try to look at what the actual differences are, between these
interpretations, if they were implemented.
If something seems to pass all these steps, then I consider it a valid
interpretation. If there are different valid interpretations which
yield different results, then I'd consider that an ambiguity. If the
ambiguity seems outright wrong (for example: an ambiguity which could
yield different results for the same set of votes on the same ballot),
then I think of that as a part of the constitution where an amendment
would be a good thing.
I think at least one of the valid interpretations for a valid amendment
should be proposed as a constitutional amendment. Perhaps all of them
should be.
Personally, I worry about any kind of wholesale change in the language
of the constitution. Yeah, if you change major chunks of the document
then current ambiguities would go away. But how do we know whether we're
introducing new ones? Or whether we're introducing other problems? [Look
how long it took for us to really notice the things you've been talking
about in the voting.]
So, yeah, I have a significant bias towards small changes that do nothing
more than fix ambiguities. [Not that I've gotten off my duff and actually
proposed something I'm happy with, at this point.]
This is similar to my bias, as a package maintainer, towards fixing
existing problems in the simplest, cleanest way possible, and "fixing"
with documentation or wrappers when the underlying issue isn't a bug.
[Which reminds me, I've got some packages to upgrade.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: