Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
I hope it is on-topic here to note that options 1, 3, and 4 formed a
Condorcet preference cycle. So these *do* occur in the wild! And not
for low-ranked obscure options either.
The winning option 7 has an arrow with a 1 on it to option 4, which is
as razor-thin as you can get. If that arrow had been reversed (which
could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO
BALLOTS) the winning option would have been in an enormous preference
cycle of FIVE (5) options!
If the winning option in an election is part of a preference cycle,
then it (by definition) has the property that there exists some other
option that a majority of the voters preferred. In some elections that
is unavoidable: we need to pick one DPL, and if they're in a cycle so
be it; if there's a tie we can just toss a coin. But in others, like
the RMS GR, it seems like it would be a rather bad property and we'd
be better off treating it as FD and trying again later.
If we're going to stick with Condorcet (and this election certainly
suggests taking a fresh look at our voting system) I think we might
want to consider giving the Secretary the power to declare some
elections as winner-in-cycle-means-FD before the election is held,
presumably based on some set of reasonable criteria.
--Barak A. Pearlmutter
Reply to: