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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:18:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters
> will, even within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing
> default, vote conservatively.

> I ground this on the observation that it's a small number of "movers
> and shakers" (or "activists") that effectuate change in a system,
> even when those changes are perceived by the electorate to promote
> the common weal.

> So, I am assuming the typical non-activist voter will think "Well,
> gosh, all of these good, and look like at least a marginal
> improvement over the status quo, but in case I'm wrong I'll rank the
> least disruptive options higher".[1]

> I do admit the possibility that I am misjudging the Debian
> electorate, or that I have insufficient experience with Debian's
> modified Condorcet/CSSD system[2] to judge its dynamics.

	Umm, by this logic shouldn't Option 2 have won in the
 disambiguation vote, rather than coming in last? Option 2, as Ian
 Jackson pointed out, was the least disruptive of the lot; but the
 voting actually went like so:

  Option 1 defeats Option 2 by 95
  Option 1 defeats Option 3 by 99
  Option 1 defeats Option 4 by 162
  Option 3 defeats Option 2 by 54
  Option 2 defeats Option 4 by 104
  Option 3 defeats Option 4 by 90

	Of course, this still falls in the category of the whole
 project is out to get Branden ;-).

Occam's eraser: The philosophical principle that even the simplest
solution is bound to have something wrong with it.
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: