Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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
Anthony> Without the second vote, that's no longer appropriate -- you
Anthony> _must_ obtain a quorum in the first vote for an option to
Anthony> pass, otherwise the quorum requirement is meaningless.
My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
with no quorum required to propose the resolution. Amendments need
no quorum either -- th ballot shall allow people a choice, if the
proposer of the resolution does not modify the resolution to accept
>> 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.
Anthony> That whole paragraph seems a bit unclear, really. Does it
Anthony> make sense to try to automatically combine "independent"
Anthony> amendments? If we have, say:
Anthony> "non-free is evil, change the social contract and kill it from
Anthony> the archives"
Anthony> as the GR, and two amendments:
Anthony> "change the social contract, but only remove
Anthony> unmaintained and buggy packages from non-free, not
Anthony> kill it entirely"
Anthony> "kill contrib as well"
Anthony> would it really be unreasonable to expect people to propose
Anthony> and second
Anthony> "change the social contract, and remove
Anthony> unmaintained/buggy non-free and contrib packages, so
Anthony> that when everything has been replaced by free
Anthony> software, the components will be empty"
I think I am confused here. The final option does not seem to
offer all choices; do you man something like this
a) Kill non free
b) Kill non free, as well as contrib
c) do not kill non free, or contrib, just remove buggy packages from them
d) Status Quo/Further discussion
If so, I agree.
Anthony> Then you can have something as simple as:
Anthony> Each set of related resolutions and amendments (that
Anthony> is, resolutions that cannot be both adopted), and the
Anthony> default option "Further Discussion", are voted on in a
Anthony> single ballot, using preferential voting.
>> 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
Anthony> YM "Schwartz set" here?  There might be a "Schulze set"
Anthony> of some sort?
I think this is a typo. Raul?
>> option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not
>> in the beat path of A.
Anthony> If so, it's defined as: "The Schwartz set is the smallest
Anthony> non-empty set of options such that no option within the set
Anthony> is beaten by any option outside of the set." It's probably
Anthony> easier to say it that way (since you don't need to discuss
Anthony> "beat path" at all then).
Anthony> It'd probably be more intuitive to say "A dominates B if A
Anthony> beats B, or there is some other option C, where C dominates
Anthony> B and A beats C" or something similar, so it's clear which
Anthony> direction the beat path goes in. That rephrases the above
Anthony> as: "An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there
Anthony> is no option B where both B dominates A, but A does not
Anthony> dominate B".
>> 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.
Anthony> Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the
Anthony> supermajority is? ie: "If a quorum is required for an
Anthony> option, there must be [...] default option. If there are
Anthony> not, then that option is discarded, and reference to it in
Anthony> ballot papers will be ignored." Alternatively (6) should be
Anthony> moved to after the winner is determined. Doing it that way
Anthony> would make the method less decisive than otherwise.
I think that supermajority and quorum issues should be decided
at the same time, yes.
>> 7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.
Anthony> Why this special case? The Perl program I wrote for this uses the
Anthony> following system:
>> 1. Calculate Schwartz set according to uneliminated defeats.
>> 2. If there are no defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
>> 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
>> 2b. Otherwise, there is a tie amongst the Schwatz set.
>> 2c. End
>> 3. If there are defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
>> 3a. Eliminate the weakest defeat/s.
>> 3b. Repeat, beginning at 1.
Anthony> It might make sense to say:
Anthony> 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
Anthony> 2b. If the default option is in the Schwartz set, it wins.
Anthony> 2c. Otherwise, the voter with a casting vote may choose a
Anthony> winner from the remaining options, or may choose to let the
Anthony> vote be retaken.
Anthony> that is, only do special cases when you really don't have a choice.
That makes sense.
>> 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.
Anthony> "tied with each other" doesn't seem particularly well
Anthony> defined, IMO. Every single pairwise comparison has to be
Anthony> exactly balanced, or already discarded.
>> 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.
Anthony> "refigured" isn't well defined.
Unless there are other comments, I'll post a new version
Friday (I'll be out and around inspecting potential building sites on
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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