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

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

> however you counted the votes in the 2001 elections you got the same
> result,

Who's to say this will be the case next year, and every year thereafter?

> none of the corner cases have come up,


> we haven't actually had any supermajority votes,

However, there is at least one pending; that being two competing
"disambiguations" of a part of the Constitution.  Since both are
amendments to the text, either would require a supermajority.

> and there are definitely more important things for us to be doing than
> worrying about "typos" in our voting system's name.

Well, okay, but should this be determinative of the disposition of
Manoj's entire RFD?  In other words, if we were to hypothetically drop
all typographical corrections from the proposal, would that make it more
or less attractive to you?

> The electoral guys have some somewhat dubious estimates of how likely
> we're to end up with any of the corner cases, somewhere back in the
> archives, fwiw.

What would you propose we discuss and then vote upon before a revision
of our voting method?

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |           //     // //  /     /
branden@debian.org                 |           EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpNyrTLOlt8P.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: