> > A.3. Voting procedure > > 3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done > > by public pronouncement) may arrange for independent ballots > > to be held simultaneously, even (for example) using a single > > voting message.
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 04:40:30PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote: > does this sit well with section A.2.2? It reads: > > # The proposer or a sponsor of a motion may call for a vote on any or > # all of the amendments individually or together; the proposer or > # sponsor of an amendment may call for a vote only on that amendment and > # related amendments. > > Perhaps section a.3.3 should refer to section a.2. One could append to > a.3.3 something like, "The vote taker should work with the person(s) > calling for the vote according to section a.2." Thanks for noticing that. It was my intention to require that all related options be voted on in a single ballot [because that's the way this voting system is designed to work], so I'll propose updating A.2.2. > > A.6 Vote Counting > > > > 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all > > options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered preferred > > to all unranked options. Unranked options are not considered > > preferred to other unranked options. > Maybe the final sentence should be worded "Unranked options are > considered to be ranked equally to other unranked options"? Or > "considered equal to"? > > Perhaps, replacing two sentences, "Options left unranked by the voter are > considered to be ranked equally with one another, and below any ranked > options." That's a good way of phrasing this, thanks. > I prefer the punctuation that you used in section A.6.2.a to the > punctuation used in b and c. "An option A is ..." rather than "An > option, A, is..." In any case, they should be consistent. I'll get rid of these commas, thanks. > > A.6.2.e. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default > > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1. > "If a majority of n:1 is required for some option A, ..."? Ok. > Another issue: would it be a good thing to give the various functions in > section A.6.2.c-e meaningful word or phrase-long names, rather than > single-letter names (e.g. change V(A,B) to prefers(A,B))? Or to define > the functions in the text? "..if the number of voters preferring A to B > (notated V(A,B)) is greater than.." Uh... I guess that's different from what I was doing before (for example, the Nov 16 draft), and I think I'm more comfortable explicitly stating what's supposed to be happening than relying on implicit expressions. I'll try this approach, if I can think of a good way of expressing things. > Perhaps the distinction between the default option and other options > should be made in section A.6.2.c instead of in section e. It could > then read something like > > "c. Given two options A and B, to determine whether A defeats B, > use test 1 if neither A nor B is the default option. If one of > them is the default option but the other has no supermajority > requirement, again use test 1. If one of them is the default > option and the other has a supermajority requirement, use test > 2. > > 1. A defeats B if the number of voters preferring A to B > (notated V(A,B)) is greater than V(B,A), and the (A,B) > defeat has not been dropped. > > 2. If A has a supermajority requirement of n:1, blah > blah..." > > This wording is much more verbose but might be clearer, in that it > sticks the parts that should be simple in their own little simple world. > Trying to reword it has seriously increased my respect for Raul's draft. > BTW, thanks for your work at this, Raul! It is important for our > project. Hmm... I'm not sure what problem you're working on solving here? [And thanks for the kudos -- but honestly, the help I've gotten from other people is a huge reason the current draft is as good as it is.] > > A.6.3.a. A defeat is in the Schwartz set if both of its options are > > in the Schwartz set. > maybe this should be "A defeat (A,B) is in the Schwartz set if both of > options A and B are members of the Schwartz set." Actually, I had meant to change this phrase entirely -- Andrew Pimlott had suggested "drop the weakest of the defeats involving members of the Schwartz set" for the introductory part of A.6.3 (the first one -- the second one should be labeled A.6.4), and I had meant to use that mode of expression. Thanks again, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
