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

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

Hash: SHA1

Hi folks,

	Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
 and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
 Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):

It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need additional language
which replaces the name "Concorde", throughout the constitution.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  A.3. Voting procedure
    1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
       separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
       combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
       Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
       procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
       quorum is required for an amendment. The Further Discussion
       option must not have any supermajority requirements. The
       default supermajority requirement is one of 1:1, and shall
       apply to all options on the ballot unless otherwise specified. 
   [Delete 2, since we do not need two votes, one to finalize the
    resolution, and a second to actually vote on it, the first ballot
    may now contain the resolution, all amendments, and the options
    could be a) the original resolution, b) resolution + amendment 1;
    c) resolution + amendment 2 <supermajority X:Y>; d) Further Discussion]
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  A.6. Concorde Vote Counting
    1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options.
       Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred
       options. (The ranking need not be complete.)
    2. Option A is said to Beat option B if more specify that option
       A is over option B than prefer B to A.
    3. Option B is said to be in the Beat Path of option A if option
       A beats option B, or if there is an option C in the beat path
       of option A where option C beats option B.
    4. An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no
       option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not
       in the beat path of A.
    5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
       supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
       in ballot papers will be ignored. 
    6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
       which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
       are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
       requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
       when checking whether the quorum has been reached.
    7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.
    8. If only one option remains in the schultz set, that option is
       the winner.
    9. If all options in the schultz set are tied with each other,
       the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from the
       schultz set.
   10. Otherwise, there are multiple options in the schultz set and
       they are not defeated equally:
          a. The weakest defeat is identified.  The weakest defeat
             is the fewest votes against any option in the schultz
             set, and (for that many votes against) the most votes
             for the corresponding option in the schultz set.
          b. If more than one option has the exact same number of
             votes in favor and the exact same number of votes opposed,
             and if those numbers are the same as for the weakest defeat,
             all these option pairs are considered to be examples
             of the weakest defeat.
          c. The schultz set is then refigured with the Beats of the
             weakest defeats eliminated. 
          d. We resume at step 8 with the new schultz set to determine
             the winner.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

- -- 
 Suppose for a moment that the automobile industry had developed at
 the same rate as computers and over the same period: how much cheaper
 and more efficient would the current models be?  If you have not
 already heard the analogy, the answer is shattering.  Today you would
 be able to buy a Rolls-Royce for $2.75, it would do three million
 miles to the gallon, and it would deliver enough power to drive the
 Queen Elizabeth II.  And if you were interested in miniaturization,
 you could place half a dozen of them on a pinhead. Christopher Evans
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by: Debian GNU/Linux -> Emacs -> Gnus -> Mailcrypt


Reply to: