Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
Sorry, there's a "Smith set", not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
> Remember that "innermost unbeaten set" is an ambiguous term if there
> are any pairwise ties in an innermost unbeaten set.
(Well, it can be; it isn't necessarily, but point taken)
> > It'd probably be more intuitive to say "A dominates B if A beats B,
> > or there is some other option C, where C dominates B and A beats C" or
> > something similar, so it's clear which direction the beat path goes in.
> > That rephrases the above as: "An option A is said to be in the Schultz
> > set if there is no option B where both B dominates A, but A does not
> > dominate B".
> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the proposed
> mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to avoid that term
> if possible.
*shrug* Then how about "An option A is said to master an option, B,
if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
C masters B." ? Or "transitively beats" ?
> > > 5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
> > >supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
> > >in ballot papers will be ignored.
> > > 6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
> > >which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
> > >are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
> > >requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
> > >when checking whether the quorum has been reached.
> > Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is?
> The quorum mechanism is structurally different from the supermajority
> requirement.
Sorry, I don't mean at the _exact_ same time, I just mean before the counting
method is applied. ie:
1. Collate votes.
2. Remove options that don't meet the supermajority requirement.
3. Remove options that don't meet the quorum requirement.
4. Count votes, according to cloneproof SSD.
5. Break ties, if necessary.
ATM the quorum is done last ("check the winner meets quorum, if not,
the default option wins").
> > > 7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.
> > Why this special case? The Perl program I wrote for this uses the
> > following system:
> To deal with the case of no votes and on a ballot with no quorum
> requirement.
In which case every option will be listed as tied, and the tie-breaking
rules can come into play.
> > # 1. Calculate Schwartz set according to uneliminated defeats.
> > # 2. If there are no defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
> > # 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
> > # 2b. Otherwise, there is a tie amongst the Schwatz set.
> > # 2c. End
> > # 3. If there are defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
> > # 3a. Eliminate the weakest defeat/s.
> > # 3b. Repeat, beginning at 1.
> >
> > It might make sense to say:
> > 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
> > 2b. If the default option is in the Schwartz set, it wins.
> > 2c. Otherwise, the voter with a casting vote may choose a
> > winner from the remaining options, or may choose to let the
> > vote be retaken.
> In other words, don't bother dropping weakest defeats?
Huh? The weakest defeats are part of 3 -- 2(a,b,c) are just alternative
versions of 2(a,b,c) from above.
> > > 8. If only one option remains in the schultz set, that option is
> > >the winner.
> > > 9. If all options in the schultz set are tied with each other,
> > >the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from the
> > >schultz set.
> > "tied with each other" doesn't seem particularly well defined, IMO.
> > Every single pairwise comparison has to be exactly balanced, or already
> > discarded.
> I'm not at all clear what you're objecting to, here. Is there something
> ambiguous about that phrasing?
It's reasonable to consider all the options in the Scwartz set to be
"tied with each other" -- dropping the weakest defeats is an automatic
tie breaker, casting votes are a manual tie breaker. I'd be inclined
to swap 10 and 9, and say "If there are any pairwise defeats, drop the
weakest...", and "If there are no pairwise defeats, then either there
are no pairs and we have a winner, or we break the tie by...".
> > > c. The schultz set is then refigured with the Beats of the
> > > weakest defeats eliminated.
> > "refigured" isn't well defined.
> I'm having trouble understanding this objection as well.
It's not well defined -- you have to use context and intuition to make
a guess at what it means, and what you're meant to do.
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it >> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and >> >> expensive modem connection. >> > >> > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools >> > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). >> >> If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. > > What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via > pop3's top command. Then it tries to remove the spam. In the end the data > still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive. Ah :| So this is still not what we want. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:00:15PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate > > term-of-art. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this > statement? > > Here's my understanding: > > The only place the constitution uses the word "dominates" is in the > appendix (A.6). The proposed constitutional ammendment replaces that > part of the appendix. > > One of the reasons for proposing a new voting system is the ambiguity > of the term "dominates" as defined by the constitution (A.6.2). What about giving the algorithm in some programing language ? You will never get english text to be without ambiguities anyway. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it > > >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and > > >> expensive modem connection. > > > > > > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools > > > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). > > > > If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. > > What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via > pop3's top command. Then it tries to remove the spam. In the end the data > still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive. Err, do you mean : 1) it asks the server for the header. 2) check the header for spam (this will not catch all spam, but at least some of it). 3) if it is not spam, download the body. 4) if it is spam, remove it from the server without downloading or let it there for later examination (would suppose storing the spam headers so they can be examinated for false positives). What you say is implying that the body get transfered even if the header was considered as spam ? Are you sure this is what you wanted to say ? Still, it would be more efficient to check for spam at the list entrances, and not at thousands of recipients. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:50:13AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making > > > things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable > > > collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people > > > who still have a problem should investigate > > > http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an excellent tool. > > > > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it > > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and > > expensive modem connection. > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin your > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. Yes (i did miss the announcement of that, only for the BTS). BTW, i am not sure, but i think it should be possible to catch the spam send to almost all debian lists, but which spamassassin does not know about. It would need a caching of all the mail ids, and a checking for duplicates, and if the same messages is sent to 6+ or something so debian mailing lists, label it as spam ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection > > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real > > issue. > > agreed. However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the > amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly. That said the > debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails > a day we receive that are spam really impact that much. On a slow day that > equates to something like 10%. Well, the problem is that you receive the spam for _each_ debian list you are subscribed to. Sure spamassassin catches a lot of spam, but if 5 pass trough, and you are subscribed to 10 lists, then it makes 50 spam messages. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:23:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection > > > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real > > > issue. > > > agreed. However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the > > amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly. That said the > > debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more > > mails > > a day we receive that are spam really impact that much. On a slow day that > > equates to something like 10%. > > Spam delivered via the Debian mailing lists is a separate issue from spam > delivered using addresses *gleaned* from Debian mailing lists. Isn't > this thread about the latter? No, look : To avoid spam in debian lists: - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special white list. No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to /dev/null (so to speak). This was the last item of the proposal, and maybe one of the most strongly objected too, both now and in the past. The debian mailing lists are open, and we want them to stay that way. Using spamassassin on the lists, will lower the quantity of spam a lot (just check your spamassassin cache and count the mail in it, and you will be convinced), and thus satisfy the people wanting this kind of extreme measures. All this may well be off-topic for debian-vote though, altough since it is the discution following a GR, it is ok, i think Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through > > spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. > > It does not work. What about those italian spams we received > yesterday and today? Forgive me, but you have a very short memory. I remember quite clearly the meteoric drop in the spam level when spamassassin was introduced on Debian lists. "It does not work"? Sorry, but it does. If you expect perfection you will of course be disappointed. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:48:26AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through > > > spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. > > > > It does not work. What about those italian spams we received > > yesterday and today? > > Forgive me, but you have a very short memory. I remember quite clearly > the meteoric drop in the spam level when spamassassin was introduced on > Debian lists. > > "It does not work"? Sorry, but it does. If you expect perfection you > will of course be disappointed. Well, the problem is if you were already using spamassassin yourself, you may not really notice the meteoric drop of the spam level. That said, i noticed the meteoric drop of the spam level when i first installed spamassassin on my mail server, so i well believe in what you said. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:23:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection > > > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real > > > issue. > > > agreed. However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the > > amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly. That said the > > debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails > > a day we receive that are spam really impact that much. On a slow day that > > equates to something like 10%. > > Spam delivered via the Debian mailing lists is a separate issue from spam > delivered using addresses *gleaned* from Debian mailing lists. Isn't > this thread about the latter? No, look : To avoid spam in debian lists: - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special white list. No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to /dev/null (so to speak). This was the last item of the proposal, and maybe one of the most strongly objected too, both now and in the past. The debian mailing lists are open, and we want them to stay that way. Using spamassassin on the lists, will lower the quantity of spam a lot (just check your spamassassin cache and count the mail in it, and you will be convinced), and thus satisfy the people wanting this kind of extreme measures. All this may well be off-topic for debian-vote though, altough since it is the discution following a GR, it is ok, i think Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:00:15PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate > > term-of-art. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this > statement? > > Here's my understanding: > > The only place the constitution uses the word "dominates" is in the > appendix (A.6). The proposed constitutional ammendment replaces that > part of the appendix. > > One of the reasons for proposing a new voting system is the ambiguity > of the term "dominates" as defined by the constitution (A.6.2). What about giving the algorithm in some programing language ? You will never get english text to be without ambiguities anyway. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it > > >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and > > >> expensive modem connection. > > > > > > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools > > > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). > > > > If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. > > What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via > pop3's top command. Then it tries to remove the spam. In the end the data > still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive. Err, do you mean : 1) it asks the server for the header. 2) check the header for spam (this will not catch all spam, but at least some of it). 3) if it is not spam, download the body. 4) if it is spam, remove it from the server without downloading or let it there for later examination (would suppose storing the spam headers so they can be examinated for false positives). What you say is implying that the body get transfered even if the header was considered as spam ? Are you sure this is what you wanted to say ? Still, it would be more efficient to check for spam at the list entrances, and not at thousands of recipients. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:50:13AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making > > > things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable > > > collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people > > > who still have a problem should investigate > > > http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an excellent tool. > > > > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it > > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and > > expensive modem connection. > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin your > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. Yes (i did miss the announcement of that, only for the BTS). BTW, i am not sure, but i think it should be possible to catch the spam send to almost all debian lists, but which spamassassin does not know about. It would need a caching of all the mail ids, and a checking for duplicates, and if the same messages is sent to 6+ or something so debian mailing lists, label it as spam ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it >> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and >> >> expensive modem connection. >> > >> > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools >> > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter). >> >> If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK. > > What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via > pop3's top command. Then it tries to remove the spam. In the end the data > still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive. Ah :| So this is still not what we want. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection > > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real > > issue. > > agreed. However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the > amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly. That said the > debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails > a day we receive that are spam really impact that much. On a slow day that > equates to something like 10%. Well, the problem is that you receive the spam for _each_ debian list you are subscribed to. Sure spamassassin catches a lot of spam, but if 5 pass trough, and you are subscribed to 10 lists, then it makes 50 spam messages. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through > > spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. > > It does not work. What about those italian spams we received > yesterday and today? Forgive me, but you have a very short memory. I remember quite clearly the meteoric drop in the spam level when spamassassin was introduced on Debian lists. "It does not work"? Sorry, but it does. If you expect perfection you will of course be disappointed. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:48:26AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through > > > spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely. > > > > It does not work. What about those italian spams we received > > yesterday and today? > > Forgive me, but you have a very short memory. I remember quite clearly > the meteoric drop in the spam level when spamassassin was introduced on > Debian lists. > > "It does not work"? Sorry, but it does. If you expect perfection you > will of course be disappointed. Well, the problem is if you were already using spamassassin yourself, you may not really notice the meteoric drop of the spam level. That said, i noticed the meteoric drop of the spam level when i first installed spamassassin on my mail server, so i well believe in what you said. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
Sorry, there's a "Smith set", not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
> Remember that "innermost unbeaten set" is an ambiguous term if there
> are any pairwise ties in an innermost unbeaten set.
(Well, it can be; it isn't necessarily, but point taken)
> > It'd probably be more intuitive to say "A dominates B if A beats B,
> > or there is some other option C, where C dominates B and A beats C" or
> > something similar, so it's clear which direction the beat path goes in.
> > That rephrases the above as: "An option A is said to be in the Schultz
> > set if there is no option B where both B dominates A, but A does not
> > dominate B".
> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the proposed
> mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to avoid that term
> if possible.
*shrug* Then how about "An option A is said to master an option, B,
if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
C masters B." ? Or "transitively beats" ?
> > > 5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
> > >supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
> > >in ballot papers will be ignored.
> > > 6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
> > >which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
> > >are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
> > >requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
> > >when checking whether the quorum has been reached.
> > Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is?
> The quorum mechanism is structurally different from the supermajority
> requirement.
Sorry, I don't mean at the _exact_ same time, I just mean before the counting
method is applied. ie:
1. Collate votes.
2. Remove options that don't meet the supermajority requirement.
3. Remove options that don't meet the quorum requirement.
4. Count votes, according to cloneproof SSD.
5. Break ties, if necessary.
ATM the quorum is done last ("check the winner meets quorum, if not,
the default option wins").
> > > 7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.
> > Why this special case? The Perl program I wrote for this uses the
> > following system:
> To deal with the case of no votes and on a ballot with no quorum
> requirement.
In which case every option will be listed as tied, and the tie-breaking
rules can come into play.
> > # 1. Calculate Schwartz set according to uneliminated defeats.
> > # 2. If there are no defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
> > # 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
> > # 2b. Otherwise, there is a tie amongst the Schwatz set.
> > # 2c. End
> > # 3. If there are defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
> > # 3a. Eliminate the weakest defeat/s.
> > # 3b. Repeat, beginning at 1.
> >
> > It might make sense to say:
> > 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
> > 2b. If the default option is in the Schwartz set, it wins.
> > 2c. Otherwise, the voter with a casting vote may choose a
> > winner from the remaining options, or may choose to let the
> > vote be retaken.
> In other words, don't bother dropping weakest defeats?
Huh? The weakest defeats are part of 3 -- 2(a,b,c) are just alternative
versions of 2(a,b,c) from above.
> > > 8. If only one option remains in the schultz set, that option is
> > >the winner.
> > > 9. If all options in the schultz set are tied with each other,
> > >the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from the
> > >schultz set.
> > "tied with each other" doesn't seem particularly well defined, IMO.
> > Every single pairwise comparison has to be exactly balanced, or already
> > discarded.
> I'm not at all clear what you're objecting to, here. Is there something
> ambiguous about that phrasing?
It's reasonable to consider all the options in the Scwartz set to be
"tied with each other" -- dropping the weakest defeats is an automatic
tie breaker, casting votes are a manual tie breaker. I'd be inclined
to swap 10 and 9, and say "If there are any pairwise defeats, drop the
weakest...", and "If there are no pairwise defeats, then either there
are no pairs and we have a winner, or we break the tie by...".
> > > c. The schultz set is then refigured with the Beats of the
> > > weakest defeats eliminated.
> > "refigured" isn't well defined.
> I'm having trouble understanding this objection as well.
It's not well defined -- you have to use context and intuition to make
a guess at what it means, and what you're meant to do.
