Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR
>>>>> "Buddha" == Buddha Buck <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Buddha> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <email@example.com> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
>> Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of
>> interest in the issue at large. Now, I see the arguments and
>> believe that for Debian it is lack of interest in a particular
Buddha> What argument changed your mind?
Assuming that the per-option quorum has no negative properties then
the simple argument that a global quorum can convince people not to
vote at all is compelling to me.
Aj's explanations of what the per-option quorum did, and his
interpretations of what it could represent if the quorum changed the
outcome of the election were sufficient to convince me that per-option
quorum had no negative properties. For me at least, it seems
reasonable if you view cases where quorum changes the outcome as the
election system picking a lower-ranked but less objectionable option
in some corner cases. Sometimes picking an option that is acceptable
but not most preferred by a majority is the right thing if it avoids
selecting an option that is completely unacceptable to some minority.
Is seems like in cases where the quorum matters, either there is great
indifference or there is such a minority.