Re: Dec 7 voting amendment draft
Hi, some more comments, mostly about wording.
> A.3. Voting procedure
> 3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done
> by public pronouncement) may arrange for independent ballots
> to be held simultaneously, even (for example) using a single
> voting message.
does this sit well with section A.2.2? It reads:
# The proposer or a sponsor of a motion may call for a vote on any or
# all of the amendments individually or together; the proposer or
# sponsor of an amendment may call for a vote only on that amendment and
# related amendments.
Perhaps section a.3.3 should refer to section a.2. One could append to
a.3.3 something like, "The vote taker should work with the person(s)
calling for the vote according to section a.2."
> 5. The votes are counted according to the the rules in A.6 If a
> quorum is required then the default option is Further Discussion.
These statements seem unrelated. This probably doesn't matter.
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all
> options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered preferred
> to all unranked options. Unranked options are not considered
> preferred to other unranked options.
Maybe the final sentence should be worded "Unranked options are
considered to be ranked equally to other unranked options"? Or
"considered equal to"?
Perhaps, replacing two sentences, "Options left unranked by the voter are
considered to be ranked equally with one another, and below any ranked
options."
I prefer the punctuation that you used in section A.6.2.a to the
punctuation used in b and c. "An option A is ..." rather than "An
option, A, is..." In any case, they should be consistent.
> A.6.2.e. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
"If a majority of n:1 is required for some option A, ..."?
Another issue: would it be a good thing to give the various functions in
section A.6.2.c-e meaningful word or phrase-long names, rather than
single-letter names (e.g. change V(A,B) to prefers(A,B))? Or to define
the functions in the text? "..if the number of voters preferring A to B
(notated V(A,B)) is greater than.."
Perhaps the distinction between the default option and other options
should be made in section A.6.2.c instead of in section e. It could
then read something like
"c. Given two options A and B, to determine whether A defeats B,
use test 1 if neither A nor B is the default option. If one of
them is the default option but the other has no supermajority
requirement, again use test 1. If one of them is the default
option and the other has a supermajority requirement, use test
2.
1. A defeats B if the number of voters preferring A to B
(notated V(A,B)) is greater than V(B,A), and the (A,B)
defeat has not been dropped.
2. If A has a supermajority requirement of n:1, blah
blah..."
This wording is much more verbose but might be clearer, in that it
sticks the parts that should be simple in their own little simple world.
Trying to reword it has seriously increased my respect for Raul's draft.
BTW, thanks for your work at this, Raul! It is important for our
project.
> A.6.3.a. A defeat is in the Schwartz set if both of its options are
> in the Schwartz set.
maybe this should be "A defeat (A,B) is in the Schwartz set if both of
options A and B are members of the Schwartz set."
Thanks again!
-thomas
--
Thomas "resc" Smith <tgs@finbar.dyndns.org>
web: http://finbar.dyndns.org/
gpg key id 1024D/ACABA81E, fingerprint:
3A47 CFA5 0E5D CF4A 5B22 12D3 FF1B 84FE ACAB A81E
Reply to: