Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm
Thue Janus Kristensen writes ("Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm"):
> I am not completely sure, but I think both ways accomplish the same thing,
> if you always only use the >= criterium.
> My way seems more flexible though, since you can use it with >= or >, or
> 2/3 majority over FD requirement, and still get sane results.
Consider a TC ballot with 2 options, A and B, plus FD.
4 voters: A > FD > B
4 voters: B > A > FD
In the current system, the winner is A. This is arguably a result of
manipulation by the A-preferers. Voters should not be incentivised in
this way to prolong "discussion".
In your proposal, the outcome is, I think, still A. The Schwartz set
is A, B, but B fails the >FD criterion. (I assume you mean to apply
A.6.3 before the casting vote, rather than afterwards. If afterwards,
then the casting voter gets to choose beteen A which becomes A and B
which becomes FD, which is bizarre.)
In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
there less incentive to manipulate the system by voting FD.