Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2003 14:27:53 -0400, Buddha Buck <email@example.com> said:
Ah... then I was confused. Replace "M(A,default) >= R" with
"V(A,default) >= R and M(A,default)>0"
The V(A,default >=R clause comes from your proposed A.6.2, and the
M(A,default)>0 clause comes from your proposed A.6.3.
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.
My intent was to change none of the semantics of your proposal. My
initial intent was to change the terminology from "per-option quorum"
(which is subject to misunderstanding and confusion with the standard
"total votes cast quorum" concept) to "acceptability". Instead of
saying an option that only a small handful of people prefer to the
default does not meet quorum, we would say that such an option is not
acceptable to enough people.
If you meant to change the meaning of quorum, I must confess I
I understand that, since I messed up a crucial definition. Is the new
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