[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 04:58:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> > eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> > ballot (ratify this? [Y/N]).  
> Note that we already had this happen in the instance of ratifying the
> constitutional amendment that updated the voting system to what it is now.
> The options on the ballot were "Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment"
> and "Further Discussion". The former required a supermajority to pass,
> a quorum was required. CpSSD handled it quite fine.

I should note that such a simple ballot, where one basically votes
straight up or down on a proposition, is pretty much the opposite of the
scenario I raised in the original message of this subthread.

Pointing out how well the system works on a two-option ballot doesn't do
very much to rebut my point at all.

G. Branden Robinson                |     It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     authors.  They have every right to
branden@debian.org                 |     license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     like.  -- Craig Sanders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: