Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:28:37 +0200, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:09:43AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Content-Description: signed data
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sven Luther wrote:
>> > But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have
>> > insider knowledge
>>
>> A situation where a vote would be successful, but fail for lack of
>> participation, often requires no insider knowledge at all to be
>> recognizeable as such. In that situation, the opponents can make a
>> vote fail simply by not voting.
> If there is sucha lack of participation that even our low quorum
> requirement is not meet, then is this a bad thing ?
Is Quorum low for all votes we have? How about tech ctte
votes? (sqrt of 9 == 3; half = 1.5; times 3 = 4.5; so we need 5 out
of 9 people (when we do get 9 people)). For 7 people, we need a
quorum of 4.
In the general body votes, for debian, sure, it is not a bad thing.
Can you point out any case in which the amendment invalidates
a vote where the initial GR does not? There is no such case I could
come up with.
Indeed, the amendment would validate general body votes where
no option got the support of event the low quorum number of voters --
which is a bad thing.
I think it should be made clear that the original GR rejects
votes in more cases of low participation than the amendment does.
manoj
--
"If you get somebody to give you a dollar, they'll vote for you for
the rest of their lives." Hugh Parmer, Democratic candidate for the
1990 U.S. Senate, from Texas
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: