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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

Ah, but there is a paradox: Consensus on one of the options does
exist. The option just got dropped (failed n:1 requirements) due to
people wanting another option, too. That is, I think, a technical

	How the hell would it get dropped if people actually had a
 consensus and wanted it?

Given two orthogonal options, A and B, with a 3:1 requirement, and the default option C:

The true preferences:

	A over C: 100
	B over C: 90
	C over A: 0
	C over B: 10

Truly, both should pass, but by putting A and B on the same ballot, one must be defeated. Some people consider A more important than B; others consider the opposite to be true. So, let's say:

	A over B: 60
	B over A: 40

This means A is the ideal democratic winner. It is undefeated. It would be wrong for it to lose. There is a strong consensus for it --- it's unanimous.

However, if the people who prefer B over A all vote --- strategically and insincerely --- ACB, then let's read the Debian Constitution:

A.6.3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.

1. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters who prefer option A over option B. 2. An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A). 3. If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority ratio is S; otherwise, its majority ratio is 1.

V(A,D) = 60
N * V(D,A) = N * 40 = 3 * 40 = 120

V(A,D) > N*V(D,A) ? => no, so drop

That's how a consensus option gets dropped.

Notice that if both sides do that, every supermajority election will default. Despite unamity. I'm not sure if its fixable, but if it is, I'd like to help fix it. One thing that comes to mind is that orthogonal issues should be on separate ballots.

I hope this makes my concern clearer.

Reply to: