Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:17:32AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > Condorcet itself allows certain forms of minority role and prevents
> > others.
>
> example? other than the case of extreme voter apathy, of course.
Any time less than a majority wins.
Ok, example...
1000 debian voters, ballot A, B, D, yields the votes:
450 ABD
250 BAD
A wins.
But only 450 people voted for A, and you'd need 501 voters to achieve
a majority. Thus, a minority of 450 has made the rule, in this case.
Or would you classify this as voter apathy? If so, I don't see why
you fail to classify the minority rule achieved specifically through
per-option-quorum as anything other than voter apathy.
> > > in this case, the options were not fairly close at all. 10 people
> > > prefered A over B. only five people prefered B over A. that is a 2:1
> > > margin. that is a 2/3'ds majority in favour of A, and it still lost.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > In the example I presented earlier (ballot: A, B, default D, one
> > vote: ABD), option A was infinitely preferred over all other options.
> > You're arguing that we should accept such a vote, even though (other
> > than one person) no one wanted to (or was able to) participate in it.
>
> in a classic Condorcet, yes. but as i explained in a previous email
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200305/msg00133.html
> or Message-id: <20030523205148.GG14022@ucsd.edu>) i outlined five major
> choices we could make, along with their relative merits.
I disagree that you've adequately discussed their merits. At minimum,
there are cases where you've used the wrong words for the ideas you're
trying to express.
[To be fair, I've done the same thing in a few places: For example, above,
I used the phrase "minority role" where I meant to say "minority rule".
Or, take the blatant mistake which Anthony pointed out as a mathematical
error.]
> two of the flaws, as far as Debian is concerned, is that Condorcet does
> not support a tyranny of the status-quo, nor does it prevent minority
> rule.
You've not defined your terms here, but they sure look loaded.
> we have attempted to solve the first flaw by the use of supermajorities.
> in so doing, we have created a new, always-present option called the
> Default Option which is basically a null-option. if a supermajority
> requiring option fails to beat the default option in a one-to-one race
> with respect to its supermajority requirement, that option is discarded.
False (or, if you prefer, "half-truth" -- though that's probably
worse).
We have the default option so that people can vote against the ballot.
That's a reform which has a rationale which is completely independent
of supermajorities and quorum.
That we *use* default option for implementing supermajorities and quorum
obscures this issue, but nevertheless, that is the case.
In any event, you could have a requirement that "a default option must
always be on the ballot" even with a pure condorcet resolution system.
> we have attempted to solve the second flaw by the use of quorum. in so
> doing, we have created a new, always-present option called the Default
> Option which is basically a null-option. if an option fails to beat the
> default option in a one-to-one race by the quorum requirement, that
> option is discarded.
>
> immediately, we see that the Default Option plays double duty. in the
> one case of supermajority, and the other case in quorum.
Well, your rhetoric has it introduced into the system twice for two
different purposes. In fact, it has only one purpose: to give us the
option of nullifying whichever parts of the vote have insufficient
popular acclaim.
Granted, this means that it can nullify the whole vote, if none of it
meets our criteria.
> i agree that Condorcet does make the best basis for a voting system. i
> do not agree, however, that our application of quorum, to prevent
> minority rule, is the correct or even the simplest approach.
Given posts like
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200305/msg00145.html
I don't agree that you know what you're talking about. So, yeah, I'll
agree that you don't think things are correct.
Unfortunately, this also makes further discussion pointless.
Please, if you want to continue this discussion, use words which really
express your meaning.
--
Raul
Reply to: