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

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

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:42:37PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 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.

First off, a bit of context:

The above example is about the implementation of quorum, and it's about
a quorum implementation which is not in the proposed ammendment.

That said: it's quite fine that the option with more votes in favor
win, however it should not win because of a vote cast against it.  And,
with quorum, this is a real possibility.

> 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. 

Sure, but it really doesn't matter whether Manoj's vote was the first
cast or the last cast.  It's a bit easier to understand the principle
if it's presented as the last vote cast, but the issue still holds if
it's the first one cast.

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

The order of the votes doesn't really matter.

> 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.

In the proposed amendment, votes against an option don't count towards

And, since a fundamental concept here is that people can vote for or
against different parts of the ballot independently, can you explain why
we shouldn't have independent quorums for different options on the ballot?


Reply to: