Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

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.

Ian.