>>>>> "Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter <ba...@pearlmutter.net> writes:
Barak> The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of
Barak> breed. But there's an old saying in computer science: garbage
Barak> in, garbage out.
Barak> If we look at the actual ballots, it's really
Barak> interesting. Options 7 and 8 were semantically pretty much
Barak> equivalent. It's hard to see any reason for someone to rank
Barak> them very differently. So if the voters are rational, we'd
Barak> think that nearly all ballots would have options 7 and 8
Barak> ranking either the same or adjacent. And that if one is
Barak> ranked the same as other options, then they should both
Barak> be. Yet many of the ballots rank one but not the other, or
Barak> rank them very differently. Some voters ranked either option
Barak> 7 or 8 as "1" and allowed everything else to default. It's
Barak> very difficult to imagine someone who actually preferred
Barak> option 7 being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and
Barak> 8.
In my mind the ballot options are not similar. First, things above FD
are things I don't mind being in a cycle. If it's ranked above FD, I'd
rather be done with a decisdiscussion and have that option win even if
it is not my preferred option. Options below FD are options I'd prefer
not make their way into a cycle.
Second, FD implies that the question is still open. I might be able to
convince people to choose something more aligned with my option in the
following discussion.
In contrast, option 7 is final; we've made a decision.
So, in filling out my ballot I rank:
1) Options that I like--where I'd be okay with any of those options
getting chosen.
2) fd
3) Options that are in the general direction I like, but are weak enough
that I'd rather have an opportunity to ask people to do something
stronger than choose those options.
4) no statement
5) options that are in a direction I disagree with.
