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

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.


"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: