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

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:21:45AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > you, sir, are the one changing the meaning of of the word quorum. my
> > amendment restores the meaning of quorum with respect to the Debian
> > voting mechanism.
> False.

which part, that ``quorum'' is being redefined, or that my amendment
fails to restore that definition?

> Nevertheless, at no point during a debian vote is anybody "present" at
> any bench or any other such location.  It's true, to my knowledge, that
> everybody is on this same planet, but that's not something that changes.

we don't use the bench definition, we use the second definition. i
thought about cutting out the misleading parts, and leaving in only the
relevant parts, but i did not want to be accused of withholding
information from those that did not have access to the OED.

i will repeat the relevant definition here, from the OED:

2. A fixed number of members of any body, society, etc., whose presence
   is necessary for the proper or valid transaction of business.

to give another example where physical location is not taken as part of
quorum, our parent organisation, Software in the Public Interest holds
its board meetings on an IRC channel. having a client connected to the
IRC network, and participating in the channel where the meeting is
taking place is sufficient to indicate presence.

the proposed version says that in order to qualify as present, you have
to agree with a particular option.  my amendment equates simply voting
with presence for the purposes of meeting quorum.

another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45

450x DAB
 45x ADB

Condorcet: D wins
Proposed:  A wins
Amended:   D wins

here we have a case where ten times the number of people think that both
candidates are so rotten, they would rather see no one in office. a
minority of a voters would like to see their candidate win. under the
proposed mechanism, the minority of the voters win, because the loud
majority voice was squelched by the per-option implementation of quota.

> Instead, we use the concept of people taking an active part in
> approving the option(s) they're voting on.

please see the above vote of where this could lead to a Minority Rule.

in no definition that i provided, or that i found, either in the OED, or
on dictionary.com, did it say that quorum is the minimum number of
people that support an option.

if you have a reference, please provide it. i searched, and came up with


Reply to: