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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting



On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 	Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > 	wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.
> If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
               ^^^^^^^^^^^

What are the scare quotes for? Did we not already have this discussion?

> but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations?

Absolutely nothing. The question isn't how controversial the amendment is,
though, it's whether people prefer the amendment with just the cosmetic
alterations to the original proposal.

> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> voting.  ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> ballot is to decide whether we're accepting or rejecting *substantive*
> amendments to the Social Contract".)

No, that's completely wrong.

If you have the options:

	[a] Remove non-free clause, editorial changes
	[b] Don't change the social contract, support non-free more!
	[c] Further Discussion

Then the winner is elected by checking:

	Does a defeats c by more than 3:1?
	Does b defeat c?

	If one or both of these don't happen, the winner is obvious (if a
	fails, but b doesn't; it's b; if b fails but a doesn't, it's a; if
	both do, it's c)

	Does a defeat b?

The only reason to vote insincerely is if you suspect that the outcome will
be:

	B defeats A
	A defeats C
	B defeats C by N+K:N

and you can convince at least K people to swap their preferences for B and
C, and that given the choice between your proposal and the alternative,
most people prefer the alternative.

And I know we've already had this discussion. Are you going to be
spreading FUD about every resolution that passes that you don't like?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Attachment: pgpR2moS7CrKa.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: