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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:

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

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_.

No, it doesn't. My preferred option still has just as many votes over the default option.

I think I failed to get my point across. Let's say that we expect a close outcome between C and B, but with B slightly ahead. The main thing I want is to strike SC 5, but B is still a good result. So my honest preference is CABD. All three other options are better than the status quo, so I rank them as such in a sincere vote.

Now, I realize that under A.6.3, B and A need to both independently get thrice the votes of the converse. So, wanting C above those two, I decide to give the converse a vote. I vote CDAB. That isn't sincere, but it's smart.

(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)

Further discussion == do nothing this vote, preserve the status quo. Even if further discussion loses, I can always post to -project, -devel, -vote, whatever to drum up support. I don't need further discussion to win to keep talking. And remember, I support the trivial editorial changes.

(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)

I know. I was part of those discussions after all. Don't recall this particular issue coming up, though.

Reply to: