On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:41:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > If you're referring to the casting vote exception in the proposal, you > urgently need to reread §5.1.7 of the constitution: the DPL has a > casting vote for GRs! Actually, you were referring to sections (iv) and (v) of the proposal. That does move the proposal from what I consider to be "coo coo crazy" to "a terribly bad idea". If an option 1 did not reach its supermajority requirements, but an option 2 would win under the current rules, then due to condorcet under your proposed scheme and due to the fact that we just spent over a month to come to no result it is extremely likely that a next vote is going to produce the same result, unless something major changes between the two votes. In other words, you'd condemn us to perpetual further "discussion". If option 1 did not make supermajority by a wide margin, it is possible that its supporters will decide it's not worth getting it on the ballot anymore, thereby resulting in option 2 being the most likely winner, in the absense of strategic voting. But we actually do have a previous vote outcome, so people who did not vote strategically in the previous round due to lack of data now no longer have such a restriction. Rather than eliminating strategic voting (as you claim you're doing), you're actually encouraging it. As said, I think this is a terrible idea. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature