On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:24:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > No, they might vote BACD because this sorts the substantive options in > increasing order of disruption to the Social Contract. It is irrational > to rank A above C if you're trying to be "conservative" (but not so > conservative that you rank D first, saying "damn all changes")?
There's been a lot of verbiage on this subject. Here's what I think you're trying to say: If we have a substantial block of debian voters who want to vote "conservatively", we will tend towards making small amounts of progress in many votes instead of more rapid progress in fewer votes. Is that a fair restatement of the issue you've been talking about? If so, I'm not sure why this is seen as a problem -- if we have a large number of voters involved who want things to progress in many small steps, instead of fewer large steps, why is the system flawed if it reflects that desire? If my restatement is unfair, perhaps you could give a clear statement of the problem, in terms that can't be confused with the above? Thanks, -- Raul
