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

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

Neil McGovern writes ("Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm"):
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:50:47PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
> > there less incentive to manipulate the system by voting FD.
> 
> I'm just wondering, what was the purpose behind treating FD as a special
> case in the first place? Could it simply not be an option on all
> ballots, but treated exactly the same as all other candidates?

When I originally wrote it, simply to deal with supermajorities.

I'm coming round to the view that the right answer is for a
winning option which didn't pass supermajority to simply decay into a
non-binding statement of opinion (at least as regards the parts of it
which require the supermajority).

Ian.