Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote:
> > How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Because our voting system can only provide one winner, even when the
> options are orthogonal. So, a very popular option line "keep x86"
> effectively veto's a less popular (but still 3:1 supermajority) option.
> Since our system can only provide 1 winner, I think that orthogonal
> options should not be allowed on the same ballot.
In other words:
 if the proposer of some ballot option chooses to ignore some popular
 (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most salient
points of both),
it's possible that that amendment will be more popular than the original
proposal, even though
 that popular amendment doesn't include something the proposer of
the original option considers salient (and might, in a separate ballot,
get approval for).
I agree that this is the case.
I don't agree that this is a flaw in the voting system.
If people want to play games, rather than work directly towards the
best outcome, then the result will be an indirect approach towards the