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
in).
> Why, is that a trick question? ;-)
Heh. We have been around the block so many times now my head
is spinning.
manoj
--
"We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on
when it's necessary to compromise." --Larry Wall in
<1991Nov13.194420.28091@netlabs.com>
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: