On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most > > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's > > mathematically sound or not, that's how people think. > > It might be how *you* think; but at least historically Debian tends > to prefer to make a decision, even if it's not the one they personally > prefer. Historically, Debian tends to have a whole bunch of nonsensical ballots filed in every vote; we have developers who simply do not comprehend our voting system. In addition, I don't think that this issue is the same as the previous ones you describe. It's not the first time there's been a vote that behaved like this either; look at how people placed Branden Robinson in the last DPL election or two for an example of the same sort of thing. > > > > I *think* that you're describing a scenario with a large number of > > > > insincere voters, though. > > > No, I'm describing a situation where the voting system is being used in > > > the way it was designed to be used. > > Then it's a matter for the secretary when creating the ballot, not an > > independent proposal. I suggest you take it up with him (when he gets > > back). > > No, if no one feels strongly enough that the status quo is a good outcome > (as they didn't for the social contract or the original "Concorde" voting > system), then it shouldn't be proposed and shouldn't appear on the ballot. I think you'll find that most people who want to keep non-free would be happy to vote "Further discussion" and are not even aware of what you describe, let alone interested in it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature