>>>>> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
Bdale> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>> The math certainly helps. We can easily see that even if we
>> think that kind of strategic exploration is not an abuse, it
>> clearly would be an abuse if some privileged category of people
>> got to choose the ballot options.
Bdale> The sensitivity of preference-based voting systems to
Bdale> strategic influence would seem to be related to the number of
Bdale> active voters. The typical Debian GR has enough valid votes
Bdale> that this isn't something I've ever actively worried about in
Bdale> the context of a GR.
Here, I think we're talking about the ballot options influencing the
vote rather than influence within the ballot.
Basically If I can create an option that might cause the voters to
discover a cycle were it on the ballot, I can potentially influence the
result.
It's not obvious to me how having more voters makes that harder to do.
In the last election, i think it is fairly obvious that a cycle is more
likely with the ballot we had than a simple up/down vote. I don't think
it was particularly hard to guess that adding options to the ballot
increased the likelihood of a cycle.
I don't think the cycle became less likely as the number of voters
increased. At least it's not obvious to me why that would be the case.
And yet, in this instance at least, I think that cycle accurately
reflects voter thinking. If you force people to choose a simple yes/no
answer, you're likely to get a yes/no. But if you allow them to express
something more complex you might well find that the preferences of the
community overall do not form enough of an ordering to have a clear
winner.
That almost happened to us.
And yet I don't think that asking a simple up/down answer would have
gotten us a more correct understanding of Debian's feeling on the issue.
It would have gotten us a easier to interpret answer, but I think it
would have overlooked complexities important to the voters.
Sigh, I guess this turned into an opinions differ on the value of asking
simple questions message after all. I didn't intend to write such a
message, and probably wouldn't have written such a message to you,
because I know we've discussed the issue and understand each other well.
I'm sending it, because at least for me, this message helps me capture
the proes and cons of asking simple questions vs having a lot of
overlapping ballot options better than I have previously.
I hope others find it useful too. I'm definitely not trying to drag you
into a discussion we've had before.
I also recognize I probably have some unstated biases that cause me to
believe that the complex answer with the higher probability of cycles is
more reflectie of actual voter thinking.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature