Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:54:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and
> I think we all understand it to mean "causing the system to violate the
> Condorcet criterion".
That's fine, but that doesn't necessarily make the system "broken".
> >supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD --
> >if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They don't necessarily
> >choose the Condorcet winner either, but that's a feature, not a bug.
> So, supposing there is a Condorcet winner (who doesn't make quorum),
> and another non-default option (who does), you want to choose the
> *other* option, not the default option *or* the Condorcet option?
From a voting nerd point-of-view, we're not really running a simple
Condorcet vote here, we're actually running two votes simultaneously. One
is an approval vote, where we mark every non-default option as either
approved or not-approved; and we require that a particular proportion of
the developer body approve each option, and that more developers approve
it than do not. The other is a Condorcet vote, evaluated on the approved
(non-default) options. Only if there are _no_ approved options does the
default option win, which is to say, does the the vote get discarded.
You can equally say that requiring seconds for proposed options breaks
Condorcet -- after all, if a potentially winning option doesn't receive
enough seconds to be voted on at all, then the Condorcet criterion
is violated. But it's not really very interesting.
> That's perverse, and certainly an extremely undesirable quality of a
> voting system.
Well, if you say so, it must be true.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''