Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:26:51PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes: >> >> >> >> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against >> >> changes to the constitution. >> >> Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does. >> >> I think Felix's point is that if we had choice 1, 2 and Nota, >> >> People who preferred option 3 would vote N>2=1 or some such. >> >> Because choice 3 was on the ballot, people had options that reflected >> their preferences and so some of those people voted 3>2>N. > > So the only thing I see is that they now had the option to express there > preferences, while they were limited in how to express their preference > without option 3. > > One way of interpreting the NOTA option is to look say what you think is > acceptable or not. Without option 3 on the ballot, you can not say you > think option 1 and 2 are acceptable but prefer option 3. You need to say > option 1 and 2 are not acceptable, while you actually think they are > acceptable. With option 3 on the ballot you can really talk about it > being acceptable or not. > > Without option 3, it's probably beter to talk about preference rather > than being acceptable. If you prefer no change, you just mark it below > the NOTA option, even when you think option 1 or 2 is acceptable. > > Option 3 being on the ballot can make it more likely for option 1 and > 2 to pass, but that's because people can actually express their opinion. > > Our voting system works best when all option are on the ballot. Adding > more options is not a problem, it has clone independence. > >> Felix's point is that the voters who preferred option 3 actually had the >> power to make it win, provided they were willing to say that they found >> option 2 unacceptable. >> Felix's assumption is that if they realized they had that power, they >> would have exercised it. > > But option 2 won, so even if there were people who voted strategically, > it's not a problem in this vote. I don't actually mind the outcome (despite my '--12' vote, which was tactical in the way described above I'm afraid -- probably as a result of growing up under the UK's first-past-the-post system, which pretty-much forces people to vote tactically, so I tend to do it out of habit). However, I'm failing to understand how the votes are calculated and/or what certain votes were expected to achieve by the people casting them. The blurb that's sent out with the votes says: To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of the above" choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. which to me suggests that if one ranks something as equal to NotA then one is not marking it as unacceptable, so presumably it is counted as acceptable -- is that how such votes are calculated? It seems 8 people voted '--1-' and 3 voted '1---'. Did those all contribute to option 2 getting its 3:1 majority? If so, do we think that someone casting either of those votes was expecting their vote to be interpreted thus? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature