Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
- From: Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:57:04 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20031101041833.GL29261@deadbeast.net> (Branden Robinson's message of "Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:18:34 -0500")
- References: <20031031211826.GA8579@cs78143044.pp.htv.fi> <20031029212528.GS11418@deadbeast.net> <20031029221045.GG6152@kalypso.caradhras.net> <20031030050438.GZ11418@deadbeast.net> <20031030150329.GA18067@frantica.lly.org> <20031030151509.GA2827@wile.excelhustler.com> <20031031054451.GA16260@azure.humbug.org.au> <20031031060405.GB16260@azure.humbug.org.au> <20031031181051.GG28240@deadbeast.net> <email@example.com> <20031101041833.GL29261@deadbeast.net>
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:18:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.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".
> 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 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 <email@example.com> <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