Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

[Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com>]

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>    The amendment uses the concept of a Quorum requirement to inhibit
>    "stealth decisions" by only a handful of developers. While this is a
>    good thing, the per-option quorum from the amendment has a tendency to
>    further influence the outcome of the vote in a hard-to-understand
>    way. This modification corrects this deficiency.

"Hard to understand"?  We'd require a certain level of voter approval
before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
can't win.  How is this "hard to understand"?

Note also that your amendment would create situations in which a
developer voting against an option might cause that option to
win*.  How is this "easier to understand"?

* For example:

   quorum: 20

   developer has reason to believe that not many votes will be cast.
   developer has reason to believe that the few votes which will be
   cast will be in favor of an option which developer is opposed to.

   Casting ballot against that option might cause ballot to achieve
   quorum.

   [Yes, this circumstance is unlikely -- that's because "not meeting
   quorum" is itself unlikely.  If "not meeting quorum" becomes 
   likely then this example also becomes likely.]

To make your proposal work right, we'd need a separate quorum
determination phase which is independent of the voting phase.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul