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

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:53:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > 	This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC)
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:10:05AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Doesn't this depend on (a) the order in which the votes are received,
> No.
> [I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to answer your other questions
> later, if no one else has by then.]

Well, I'm still confused.

Here is Manoj's example:
>        Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been
> 44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am
> opposed to the option.
>        At this point; under my version; I can express my opinions
> with no fear of harming my candidate. Under your amendment; if I do
> not vote; the vote is nullified. However, if I vote against the
> option -- the option shall win!!

If there are 45 total votes, quorum is met. 23 votes is more than 22.
Why shouldn't Manoj's candidate lose? He has less votes.

In Manoj's example he talks about there already being 44 votes and him
adding another, which goes on to make his candidate fail (as quorum is
now met), instead of the vote being void. 

Does this same argument still apply if the 22 against votes occur, followed 
by 23 for votes? Why should this vote be invalid?

Or are you arguing that votes against an option cannot count towards
quorum? In which case, each option would have to meet quorum
independently to win. That wouldn't be a good definition of quorum.

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Reply to: