Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

[Buddha Buck <bmbuck@14850.com>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 
>
>
> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> > > > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
> > > >
> > > > This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a
> > > > 3:1 majority, and makes it extremely difficult even to satisfy a
> > > > propostion that requires only a simple majority.
> > >
> > > This doesn't make sense.
>
>
> > Of course it does.  Consider:
>
>
> 	I don't think you understand the voting system.
>
>
>
> > [   ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian Swirl Red)
> > [   ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian Swirl Green
> > [   ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian Swirl Blue
> > [   ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
> >
> > 250 ballots ranking 1234
> > 250 ballots ranking 2314
> > 250 ballots ranking 3124
> > 250 ballots ranking 2221
>
>
> > Choices 1, 2, and 3 require a 3:1 majority to pass, of course.
>
>
> > What happens?  Our voting system does not give us the ability to
> > reach the common-sense conclusion that 3 out of every 4 voters
> > wanted to remove clause 5 from the Social Contract.  Instead,
>
>
> 	Which, in a 3:1 majority, is barely enough.

The language in the Constitution is "strictly greater", so it is barely 
not enough.

> > "further discussion" wins.
>
>
> 	Wrong.  I think that this is where the disconnect is; this
>  example represents a profound misunderstanding of our voting system.

Well, "further discussion" does win, since 750:250 is not "strictly 
greater" than 3:1.

But, modulo that edge case,  I agree this example represents a profound 
misunderstanding of our voting system.

> Option 1 passes Majority.               3.000 (750/250) > 3
> Option 2 passes Majority.               3.000 (750/250) > 3
> Option 3 passes Majority.               3.000 (750/250) > 3

For the sake of argument, let's say 3.000 > 3 instead of 3.000 == 3.