Re: What does FD Mean
"Barak A. Pearlmutter" <bap@debian.org> writes:
> Let's say a cohort of voters prefers option APRICOT to option BANANA,
> but would like neither (FD) even better. However they are well aware
> that there's no way FD will win.
> It is possible that if they vote their true preference,
> FD > APRICOT > BANANA
> then BANANA will win, while if they vote
> APRICOT > FD > BANANA
> then APRICOT will win, due to majority/quorum issues. In other words,
> they are penalized for voting honestly.
Isn't this true regardless of majority/quorum issues? That looks like an
example of compromising, and the Wikipedia page on Condorcet says that it
(without our majority addition) is susceptible to compromising if there is
a majority rule cycle.
It's not clear to me that the majority requirement makes it substantially
worse. I believe the majority requirement can only affect the outcome in
the case of majority rule cycles, and (please correct me if I'm wrong)
those seem to be rare in our votes.
(By definition an option without a majority was voted below FD by a
majority of voters, and therefore I believe it's impossible in Condorcet
for that option to defeat FD if there are no cycles, and thus it would be
impossible for it to win if there are no cycles since FD would always win
instead.)
I'm not as sure about the quorum rule, but in project-wide (as opposed to
technical committee) votes, I don't remember an option failing quorum that
would have had any realistic chance of winning. Generally that means the
option is losing by a huge margin.
Obviously that could be different in a very low turnout vote.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: