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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> >> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.

> > Why so?  I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to hear someone
> > else's thoughts on the phenomenon.  I'm interested in figuring out
> > what sorts of techniques we might use to distinguish "sincere"
> > preferences from "strategic" ones.

> 	Giving a gypsy a gold coin helps.

The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this.  If the introduction of
default options violates this property, that's something that should be

That said, I don't agree with the claim that one can never prefer
"further discussion" over any (or all) of the options on a ballot.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: