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

Re: April 17th Draft of the Voting GR

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >      3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
> >         by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
> >         a. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters
> >            who prefer option A over option B.
> >         b. An option A defeats the default option D by a majority
> >            ratio N, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
> >         c. If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority ratio
> >            is S; otherwise, its majority ratio is 1.

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:15:59AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Assuming we really want this clause, we should try to get it
> complete: what happens in the case that 3b+3c eliminates all
> options?  I guess the default option should win then?

3. only eliminates non-default options.  At least, that's the way it's
supposed to read.

Did you miss the first sentence?

> And do we really want to drop the default option at this point?  If
> this is the case, we could add a sentenct like "note that this removes
> the default option from the ballot".

Why would we want to do that?

> >      5. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we
> >         drop the weakest such defeats, and return to step 4.

> I asked this before: is the concept of "dropping a defeat"
> really clear without explanation?  At least it is not clear to me.
> Does it mean dropping the defeated option?  Or setting the values
> in two cells of the tally table to 0?

Maybe we should define "dropped" -- if it's ambiguous, that's not good.
What kinds of ambiguity do you see?

Personally, the only ambiguity I see is that we "drop" "defeats" in
5. and we "drop" "options" in 2. and 3.  That might invite an unwarranted
parallel in some people's minds.

Probably, to reduce ambiguity, we should probably use the phrase
"removed from consideration" for 2. and 3. (where we're dealing with
options rather than defeats).

If you think we need more than this, perhaps you could explain what
kind(s) of ambiguity you see?

> >      6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then ..
> How could there be defeats within the Schwartz set at this point?

That's a guard condition -- if there are defeats within the Schwartz
set we shouldn't be applying this rule.

> Couldn't we simply write "The elector with the casting vote chooses
> the winner among the remaining options"?

That seems to fail to say when it's time to apply this rule.



Reply to: