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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
> requirements, given my favorite ballot:
> 	A: strike SC 5
> 	B: trivial
> 	C: strike SC 5 + trivial
> 	D: further discussion
> If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I should
> do this because A.6.3 makes my vote for D count against B (and A) three
> times.

Well, no you shouldn't, because you're increasingly likely to end up
with the default option winning, which is what you claim to want _least_.
(If you're really thinking about trying to avoid other options winning,
then it's unlikely that "Further discussion" really is your last
preference -- given that implies the opportunity to do a better job of
advocating for your preferred option)

In any event, the meaning of supermajority requirements as expressed in
the voting system is that any "superminority" of, eg, 25% of voters (in
the 3:1 case), can block a change, specifically by ranking it below the
default option. You should consider it part of the job of advocating for
a change to make sure that you have convinced a supermajority (ie, 75.1%
of people) that they're not so bothered by your change that they'd want
"further discussion" to win instead.

(Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the voting
GR; and that we've had the GR on it, which has passed)


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: pgp3EaFy7djjb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: