On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In conclusion, endless discussion is not a win. And I think this
> strategic voting fix may bring us there. If I were to put together an
> amendment that fixed the strictly greater issue but did not tackle the
> strategic voting issue
Hi Ian,
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:20:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The intent of this change is that if the Condorcet(CSSD) winner does
> not meet the supermajority requirement, it is still the winning
> outcome of the whole vote, but only as a non-binding statement of
> opinion.
>
> So for e
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Kurt> The solution to this problem is moving the majority check
> Kurt> later in the process, so that option B would have been dropped
> Kurt> first. If they did this stratigic voting in that case both
> Kurt> options w
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Kurt> One of the problems, and I consider that to be the most
Kurt> important one, is about the stratigic vote that you can do.
Kurt> For example, condiser that there ar
4 matches
Mail list logo
