Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:57:13 +1200, Nick Phillips <email@example.com> said:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:27:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Here, the vote(s) for B caused A to win.
>> Other examples are possible (for example: 19 ABD, 1 BDA).
>> > > To make your proposal work right, we'd need a separate quorum
>> > > determination phase which is independent of the voting phase.
>> > i fail to see that argument.
>> See above.
> I don't believe that it's acceptable for an otherwise beaten option
> to win due the the otherwise winning option being discarded due to a
> quorum requirement, as John suggests might happen.
Quite. But Johns amendment does not solve this, really -- all
he does is remove all per item quorum requirements, which is likle
throwing out the baby with the bath water.
> I also don't believe that it's acceptable to break the Monotonicity
I am glad we agree.
> If a winning option would be discarded due to quorum requirements,
> then I think the vote should probably be considered void.
I tend to agree. If someone would write up an amendment which
encapsulates this, without getting rid of the concept of per item
quorum needs, I would accept that in the GR.
Aj, if you could write up something about the minor flaws you
see (including renaming the RATIONALE to something saner), I would
consider that too.
I am away from home, and my keyring, and can only snatch short
periods of connectivity to the net, so I would appreciate it if
someone took the lead in writing up these modification (or wait until
I get back home on the weekend).
A friend of mine won't get a divorce, because he hates lawyers more
than he hates his wife.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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