Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <email@example.com> writes:
Andrew> ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters
Andrew> that B voters can cause D beats A.
But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd
rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below D, otherwise if I
consider either acceptable I rank A above D.
To show a strategy, I think you need to show me a situation where it
is in my advantage to either:
1) Believing that A is acceptable and that I prefer either B or A to
no decision getting made, rank A below D.
2) Believing that A is unacceptable and prefering no decision to A,
rank A above D.
What you seem to be saying is that I prefer B over A strongly enough
that I'm willing to risk D winning, but I still find A unacceptable.
I think that seems rather unlikely, and many people who vote that way
are close to finding A unacceptable and thus actually end up voting
I expect that if people are voting honestly on a Debian ballot about a
heated issue, you will see them rank the default option fairly near
the top of their ballot. I.E. I suspect that where people feel
strongly about an issue, yes -> default -> no will be a much more
honest vote than yes -> no -> default.