# Re: current A.6 draft

```> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:54:31PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > >           b. A defeat (A,X) is weaker than a defeat (B,Y) if A is not
> > >              the default option and V(A,X) is less than V(B,Y).  Also,
> > >              (A,X) is weaker than (B,Y) A is not the default option and if
> > >              V(A,X) is equal to V(B,Y) and V(X,A) is greater than V(Y,B).
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 02:04:40PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > I think you left out the definition of weaker for the default
> > option, no?

On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 08:53:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Correct.  I did this intentionally.
>
> Any option defeated by the default option is a "bad choice" at the
> time of this election.

Ok, what I thought you meant to do was add a clause defining weaker
for the default option in terms of the supermajority ratio.  Which
is similar to (I think) the last proposal.

And what I propose is to define it as above, but without an
exception for the default option.

What you did propose doesn't seem to do what you want.  It says that
a defeat by the default option can't be weaker than another defeat.
It can still be stronger.  So the only effect is that a defeat that
would have been stronger only than a defeat by the default, becomes
a weakest defeat.  Did you mean to say that a defeat by the default
option can't be stronger than another defeat?  Or that it's always
weaker?

Maybe you can give an example of how you expect this exception to
work.  It sounds like you're getting at something close to aj's
proposal, in which any option defeated by the default option has no
chance.  If that's not what you mean to do, can you clarify the
difference?

(Was your idea discussed before and I missed it?)

> >     - Not handling general (non int-1) supermajority ratios would be
> >       silly.  As long as it will be understood that the n in n:1
> >       need not be a whole number, there's no problem.  But it might
> >       be better to mention this possibility explicitly.
>
> Uh... can you express what the ambiguity is?  [I've only got a few
> moments here for a reply, I'll try figuring this one out tomorrow.]

There is no ambiguity, strictly speaking.  But when people read
"n:1", they will think "n is an integer", because n conventionally
stands for an integer, and because ratios are usually expressed in
terms of integers.  So if Debian ever decides that some election
needs a 3:2 supermajority, some stickler might say that the voting
system didn't forsee this and must be amended.

If you don't think this is a big deal, that's fine.  But maybe you
could state for the record that n need not be an integer, should the
question ever arise.

One other thing:  It's confusing to have the Schwartz set contain
both options and defeats.  Just say something like, "drop the
weakest of the defeats involving members of the Schwartz set".

Andrew

PS.  I probably won't read mail until Tuesday.  aj knows why.

```