Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:44 AM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> >for the ``quorum'' requirement: this is easy.
> >require X number of seconds with each anti-second counting against the
> >totally number of seconds.
> So, in other words, drop Condorcet and switch to a simple majority vote
> instead. You've got votes for (seconds) and votes against
> (anti-seconds). How is this not a vote?
this is what we are doing right now with the above-default = approval;
equal-to-or-below-default = rejection.
instead of trying to hide it in some strange bastardisation of
Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, bring it out into the open. plus, we get to
un-bastardise Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD while we are at it.
> Requiring Q seconds would be much more reasonable, methinks.
i agree with you, but we loose the ability to reject. am i against that?
no. not at all. however, since we as a project feel that being able to
say ``No'' is desirable, it is important to be able to maintain that.
so - we set the bar for getting onto the ballot higher. it does make a
two-stage voting process, sort of. this is also a bit more complicated
that a simple yes/no and see which is prefered (either via approval or
condorcet or plurailty or whatever). i see no problem with that, as we
are not choosing which option to implement, but choosing which options
> >this takes out all possibilities of strategic voting, and applies the
> >strategy to the proposal stage. at least the vote tallying method
> >remains untainted :/
> Yeah, but it got ten times worse overall.
yes, there is that.
so - does anyone have any better ideas?