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

Re: Hybrid Theory

> >Interestingly enough, the problem which has lead to all these voting
> >mechanics proposals very much has to do with the conflict expressed here
> >between (2b) and (2c).

On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:54:21AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> I don't see the conflict. Its easy to drop options that don't meet 
> supermajority requirements, and perform plain (or my proposed default 
> protected) CSSD on the ones that do.

The statements were:

	(2b) An option that does not meet its supermajority requirement does
	     not affect the outcome of the vote.
	(2c) Options with a supermajority requirement should be treated as
	     similarly to other options as possible.

However, for the case described in
the "Hybrid Theory" voting mechanics draft treats options with a
supermajority requirement more similarly to other options than does (2b).

> However, if the method only 
> compares supermajority requirements to the default option, in my humble 
> opinion, it will produce strategy problems that would allow a 
> supermajority option to be elected without a supermajority via insincere 
> voting, a weak dummy option, and two elections, as in 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200212/msg00066.html.

If we have a majority of voters who will agree to the proposal "Debian
should jump on three feet", there is no reasonable voting system which
can prevent this proposal from winning.

However, a vote for "further discussion" is not a vote to preserve the
status quo.  Instead, it's a vote against the indicated options on the
ballot -- if it wins status quo is preserved as a stopgap until another
resolution can be achieved.   Thus, given the preferences you expressed,
I think your last vote in the above example would have the votes:

A (supermajority requirement), B (default), D (get rid of "Debian
should jump on three feet):
60 ADB
40 DBA

Result: D wins, and we get rid of "Debian should jump on three feet",
as nobody wants that.


Reply to: