Re: Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:32:40PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes:
> > For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options
> > that the voters considered acceptable.
> > Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle.
>
> If the decision doesn't really matter but a non-FD option must be
> chosen (like a hungry group picking a restaurant) then sure, whatever.
>
> But for something important, I think we *should* be bothered by a cycle.
>
> Let me give an example. Let's say we end up with ALPHA, BETA, and
> GAMMA in a cycle: ALPHA>BETA, BETA>GAMMA, GAMMA>ALPHA. So we run our
> resolution algorithm, and it picks ALPHA. Well that's nice. But note
> that if we had not had BETA as an option on the ballot, then GAMMA
> would have been the winner, without anyone changing their votes.
You might want to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives#Criticism_of_IIA
> Not
> only is that odd, but it means that it would be reasonable for a
> die-hard ALPHA supporter, seeing that GAMMA is going to beat ALPHA,
> would propose adding BETA to the ballot. This means that we are
> vulnerable to strategic (rather than honest) behaviour throughout the
> process, including in proposing ballot options.
So that would be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination
If the option is similar to an existing option, it should not
have an effect for the Schulze method we use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_clones_criterion
No voting system is perfect.
Kurt
Reply to: