Hi Felix,
On 05.04.21 15:35, Felix Lechner wrote:
When a center option is likely to fail our majority requirement [1]
should I rank preferable extreme choices above FD even if I am
strictly moderately inclined?
You are making two bold assumptions here: that the options are on a
single one-dimensional axis, and that middle ground positions are always
preferable.
Our position statement, whatever it is, contains multiple statements,
because there are multiple issues at stake here: whether we find RMS's
behaviour acceptable, whether we find the FSF board's behaviour
acceptable, whether we believe that the accusations were sufficiently
proven, and if they are, whether that is relevant or should be
disregarded because contributions are more important than behaviour and
code matters more than community.
These are correlated, but not the same, so it is difficult to position
all of the options on a single axis.
Even if it were a one-dimensional axis, there are good chances that a
middle ground position would be worse than an extreme position,
combining the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.
Thus it makes sense to view each position statement separately, project
its likely outcome, and rank the favourability of these outcomes instead
of trying to rank them by closeness to a desired position statement --
that's why we have a cloneproof voting system that allows anyone to
contribute a statement that exactly represents their position without it
detracting from other, similar statements.
Along the same lines, would it be better for a voting system to
quadruple-count, or otherwise strengthen, options voters rank in the
middle—thereby recognizing that a compromise between two or more sides
is always a prerequisite for peace?
There are more than two sides here, and multiple definitions of "peace".
One possible definition differentiates between negative peace (the
absence of personal violence) and positive peace (the absence of
structural violence)[1], and whether a particular position statement
serves to promote peace is dependent on one's definition.
Simon
[1] http://www.activeforpeace.org/no/fred/Positive_Negative_Peace.pdf
