Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 10:28, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [2] (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most
> > salient points of both),
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:45:33PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You do realize that if we created a ballot with even 4 different
> orthogonal options with all combinations, our ballot would have 16[0]
> options on it?
So?
As a general rule, the discussion process tends to reveal the major
clusters of opinion. But, yeah, if you demanded that the discussions
be carried out with no allowance for intelligence on anyone's part,
then you could get a lot of trivial variations on the most trivial issues.
Have you noticed that people tend to adopt ideas that they think are
good? Most of the amendments tend to be accepted by the proposer and
the seconders. Not all, of course, because sometimes people do have
differing ideals.
On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe
there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are intertwined
that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot.
> Add a firth, and you get 32, and so on. I think its a
> flaw in our voting system if we encourage our ballot to look like it
> needs the word "Made in California" stamped on it.
>
> [0] .C. + .C. + .C. + .C. + 1 (further discussion). Hope the Unicode
> comes out.
I see .C. + .C. + .C. + .C. + 1.
Anyways, should there ever be reason to vote on hundreds of options
(perhaps ... in a leader election), our balloting system would be quite
a bit more robust than california's.
Or: if there's a reason to have that many options, then why shouldn't
we have that many options?
If there's no reason, then what's the issue?
--
Raul
Reply to: