Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Tue, 20 May 2003 22:43:59 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Hi, You actually propose two separate amendments. Please don't do
> that, it smells of politics. :-/
> John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> - 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other
> - than the default option which do not receive at least R votes
> - ranking that option above the default option are dropped from
> - consideration.
> + 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R, and less then R votes
> + cast, the entire vote is thrown out. The amendment may be
> + or a discussion period may be resumed at the sponsor's discretion.
> I think I like this change.
Apart from the fact that a ballot having a quorum may not be
well defined; this amendment is superfluous, since if less than R
votes are cast, then no option gets R votes, so all options are
discarded, and the vote is invalidated anyway.
> + 3. Any option with a supermajority requirement which does not
> + the default option by its required majority ratio is dropped from
> + consideration.
> - 3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default
> - by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
> The point of wording it the "old" way was that any option which is
> ranked below the default by a majority is removed before starting
> the algorithm. That is intentional; otherwise, a case can be
> constructed where such an option could win, which is Not Good.
> I'd reject this change.
Mind your own business, then you don't mind mine.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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