Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Wed, 21 May 2003 14:27:53 -0400, Buddha Buck <email@example.com> said:
> 2) Would an amendment to (a) to the following effect be acceptable
> clear up nomenclature issues:
> Replace A.6.2-4 in the proposed amendment with:
> 2. Procedural Definitions
> a. V(A,B): For any options A and B, V(A,B) is defined as the number
> of ballots cast that rank option A higher than option B
> b. margin of A over B: The margin of A over B M(A,B) = V(A,B)-V(B,A)
> Note that M(A,B) = -M(B,A)
> c. defeats: For any options A and B, A defeats B if and
> only if M(A,B) > 0
> d. Acceptable: An option A other than the default option is
> considered "acceptable" if and only if M(A,default) >= R,
> where R is the "quorum requirement" for the vote.
This changes the meaning of Quorum as used by Debian. In
Debian, quorum is used to ensure there a modicum of interest in an
option -- so, if R people vote for an option, there is interest. It
does not matter how many people vote _against_ the option -- Quorum
is not used to ensure a margin of victory.
Indeed, once it has been established that a sufficient segment
of the voting population is interested in an option, the cloneproof
SSD condorcet method is perfectly capable of determining winners --
and close winners ought to be acceptable, no? (Remember, our current
DPL won by just 4 votes in the closest pairwise race).
If you meant to change the meaning of quorum, I must confess I
> e. Superacceptable: An option A with a supermajority
> requirement of N:M is considered superacceptable if and
> only if M*V(A,default) > N:V(default,A).
> f. Pairwise defeat: A pairwise defeat is an ordered pair of
> options (A, B) where A defeats B.
> g. "weaker" A pairwise defeat (A,B) is considered weaker than
> pairwise defeat (C,D) if V(A,B) < V(C,D)
> 3. Dropped options
> a. Any non-default option A which is not acceptable is dropped
> b. Any option A with a supermajority requirement which is not
> superacceptable is dropped.
> 4. Create a list of all pairwise defeats (A,B), where neither A nor
> are dropped, sorted by V(A,B).
> with related changes elsewhere to use these definition.
So, to answer your question, no, I would not find this
acceptable for my version of the GR, for the reasons presented
"No! We will not die like dogs. We will fight like lions!" The Three
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