On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
>> > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
>> >
>> > This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a
>> > 3:1 majority, and makes it extremely difficult even to satisfy a
>> > propostion that requires only a simple majority.
>>
>> This doesn't make sense.
> Of course it does. Consider:
I don't think you understand the voting system.
> [ ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian Swirl
> Red)
> [ ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian Swirl
> Green
> [ ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian Swirl Blue
> [ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
>
> 250 ballots ranking 1234
> 250 ballots ranking 2314
> 250 ballots ranking 3124
> 250 ballots ranking 2221
> Choices 1, 2, and 3 require a 3:1 majority to pass, of course.
> What happens? Our voting system does not give us the ability to
> reach the common-sense conclusion that 3 out of every 4 voters
> wanted to remove clause 5 from the Social Contract. Instead,
Which, in a 3:1 majority, is barely enough.
> "further discussion" wins.
Wrong. I think that this is where the disconnect is; this
example represents a profound misunderstanding of our voting system.
> Is that because the proposition to
> remove clause 5 from the Social Contract failed to persuade 3 out of
> 4 developers that it was a good idea? That doesn't follow from
> interpretation of the results.
I think you under estimate the voting system here. Let us see
what actually happens:
Option
1 2 3 4
=== === === ===
Option 1 500 250 750
Option 2 250 500 750
Option 3 500 250 750
Option 4 250 250 250
Option 1 Reached quorum: 750 > 45
Option 2 Reached quorum: 750 > 45
Option 3 Reached quorum: 750 > 45
Option 1 passes Majority. 3.000 (750/250) > 3
Option 2 passes Majority. 3.000 (750/250) > 3
Option 3 passes Majority. 3.000 (750/250) > 3
Option 1 defeats Option 2 by 250
Option 3 defeats Option 1 by 250
Option 1 defeats Option 4 by 500
Option 2 defeats Option 3 by 250
Option 2 defeats Option 4 by 500
Option 3 defeats Option 4 by 500
The Schwartz Set contains:
Option 1 "Option 1"
Option 2 "Option 2"
Option 3 "Option 3"
Weakest Defeat(s):
Option 1 beats Option 2 by 250 votes
Option 2 beats Option 3 by 250 votes
Option 3 beats Option 1 by 250 votes
Deleting weakest defeat(s)
The Schwartz Set contains:
Option 1 "Option 1"
Option 2 "Option 2"
Option 3 "Option 3"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The winners are:
Option 1 "Option 1"
Option 2 "Option 2"
Option 3 "Option 3"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
There. Happy now? Our voting system can indeed cope with this
scenario.
manoj
--
God was satisfied with his own work, and that is fatal. Samuel Butler
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
