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

voting amendment: todo

The purpose of this message is not to provoke debate.  This is for
people who want to know where I think things are going.  If there's
something important that's not listed here, please tell me [us] about
why it's important.

I'd rather we delay debate on each of these issues until we have a draft
incorporates that issue.  I'd like to deal with these issues in roughly
this order.

Here's a list of outstanding issues to deal with on the voting amendment:

[0] Review the current A.6 draft for potential flaws.

[1] Incorporate Branden's "explicit tie" recommendation.  [I've not heard
anyone objecting to it, and I can't see that it opens any possibilities
for insincerity.  Also, the electionmethods people suggested we do this.]

[2] Incorporate the changes to A.3 (from Manoj's draft in October).

[3] Incorporate a change throughout the constitution from "Concorde" to
"Condorcet", since we're changing the mechanics of the mechanism.

[4] Incorporate changes based on some other suggestions by the
electionmethods people:

They've suggested that 4.2.3 and A.5 might be too vague.  4.2.3 isn't
too bad right now: (a) we have a good way of listing all votes, (b)
"no longer in doubt" should mean that enough of all voters have voted
that even if every remaining voter voted in opposition to the winner the
outcome would be the same.  Likewise, proposals can be re-introduced after
they're withdrawn under A.5.  Still, if I [or someone else] can suggest
a good way to clean these up, I'd like to incorporate that into the draft.

They've suggested that the distinction we make between amendments and
original proposals is inappropriate for a ranked voting system, and that
we should relax this distinction.

They've suggested that we should prevent the sponsors of a proposal from
forcing serialized decision making, since ranked voting is a better way
of making those kinds of comparisons.


Reply to: