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

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD votetallying

On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> said: 

> Hi,
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
>> providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent,
>> how can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are
>> voting honestly, from people who would consider A acceptable, but
>> are lying to give B an edge?

> By providing them with a voting system which allows them to express
> their preferences adequately so that they don't _have_ to lie, if
> they want their true preferences to be considered fairly. Most other
> voting systems simply can't do that.

	If someone can come with one, great. However, not allowing me
 to express "I truly do not care if C passes or no" (ranking C == rank
 of default option), or not allowing me to express the fact that I
 truly find B unacceptable are clearly not solutions; and those are
 the initiatives I was protesting against.

> This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with
> Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that
> task.

	Cool. All we need is the other sponsors to agree (though I
 agree with the rationale behind the change, I do not feel strongly
 enough to have to go through and campaign for a new set of sponsors;
 if 5 of the original sponsors agree to the changes, I'll put them

> Why, is that a trick question?  ;-)

	Heh. We have been around the block so many times now my head
 is spinning.

"We all agree on the necessity of compromise.  We just can't agree on
when it's necessary to compromise." --Larry Wall in
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: