Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:48:13 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I have serious concerns about this ballot. John Robinson's proposed > amendment has been rejected by Manoj so according to the > constitution it should be voted on. Further it seems to address some > real problems in t

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:48:13AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > >With the relative order or rating of the other > >candidates unchanged, voting a candidate higher should > >never cause the candidate to lose, nor should voting a > >ca

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Then shouldn't we be voting on it separately, according to A.1.3 of the constitution? Only if it gets enough seconds.

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:48:13AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > >With the relative order or rating of the other > >candidates unchanged, voting a candidate higher should > >never cause the candidate to lose, nor should voting a > >ca

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:25:08AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This > > Then shouldn't we be voting on it separately, according to > A.1.3 of the constitutio

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Then shouldn't we be voting on it separately, according to A.1.3 of the constitution? Only if it gets enough seconds. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:25:08AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Then shouldn't we be

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:42:37PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Well, I'm still confused. > > Here is Manoj's example: > >Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been > > 44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am > > opposed to the option. >

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:25:08 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I am >> not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This > Then shouldn

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This > makes our vote method fail the monoticity criteria > (http://www.electionmethods.org/ev

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 22:42:37 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:53:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >> > > This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC) >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:10:05AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: >> > Doesn't this depend on (a) the

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:25:08AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This > > Then shouldn't we be voting on it separately, according to > A.1.3 of the constitutio

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This Then shouldn't we be voting on it separately, according to A.1.3 of the constitution? Ha

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:25:08AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Then shouldn't we be

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:42:37PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Well, I'm still confused. > > Here is Manoj's example: > >Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been > > 44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am > > opposed to the option. >

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This > makes our vote method fail the monoticity criteria > (http://www.electionmethods.org/ev

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:53:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC) > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:10:05AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Doesn't this depend on (a) the order in which the votes are received, > > No. > > [I'm busy at the moment, but I

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Oh, as a sponsor of the GR, I suppose I should clarify that I > am not going to accept this amendment; I consider it a bad one. This Then shouldn't we be voting on it separately, according to A.1.3 of the constitution? Ha

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:53:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC) > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:10:05AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Doesn't this depend on (a) the order in which the votes are received, > > No. > > [I'm busy at the moment, but I

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> > This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC) On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:10:05AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Doesn't this depend on (a) the order in which the votes are received, No. [I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to answer your other questions later, if no one else has by then.]

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Scenario B: > > Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been > 44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am > opposed to the option. > > At this point; under my version; I

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> > This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC) On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:10:05AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Doesn't this depend on (a) the order in which the votes are received, No. [I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to answer your other questions later, if no one else has by then.]

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Scenario B: > > Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been > 44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am > opposed to the option. > > At this point; under my version; I

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > your favourite option up (from 0 to 0.5 in this example above), but they > > also increase the odds of the default option getting up (again, from 0 to > > 0.5). That's a gamble, not a strategy. > Tell that to a gambler. Gamblers

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 04:59:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Now, the 6 BAD voters (teehee) I appreciate your ability to find humor. > But the point is, that voting as a bloc might increase your chance of getting > your favourite option up (from 0 to 0.5 in this example above), but they > als

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 04:33:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > > Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C. > > Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. > > Sure it does: if their sincere preferences were "

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > your favourite option up (from 0 to 0.5 in this example above), but they > > also increase the odds of the default option getting up (again, from 0 to > > 0.5). That's a gamble, not a strategy. > Tell that to a gambler. Gamblers

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 04:59:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Now, the 6 BAD voters (teehee) I appreciate your ability to find humor. > But the point is, that voting as a bloc might increase your chance of getting > your favourite option up (from 0 to 0.5 in this example above), but they > als

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 04:33:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > > Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C. > > Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. > > Sure it does: if their sincere preferences were "

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:18:18AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > sincere strategy by BAD > > 9 ABD 9 ABD > 6 BAD 6 BDA > 3 DAB 3 DAB > 2 DBA 2 DBA > Condorcet+SSD A

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C. > Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. Sure it does: if their sincere preferences were "A,B,C > D" in all cases, (whatever their preferences amongst A, B and C)

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:18:18AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > sincere strategy by BAD > > 9 ABD 9 ABD > 6 BAD 6 BDA > 3 DAB 3 DAB > 2 DBA 2 DBA > Condorcet+SSD A

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C. > Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. Sure it does: if their sincere preferences were "A,B,C > D" in all cases, (whatever their preferences amongst A, B and C)

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> > A beats B 40:20 > > B beats C 40:20 > > A beats C 40:20 > > D beats A, B and C 40:20 > > > > Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C. On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. It > could be that the best

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > ... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used. > Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases > where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and > "appr

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, 22 May 2003 13:06:34 -0400, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Ah... then I was confused. Replace "M(A,default) >= R" with > "V(A,default) >= R and M(A,default)>0" The V(A,default >=R clause > comes from your proposed A.6.2, and the M(A,default)>0 clause comes > from your proposed

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Mon, 26 May 2003 13:42:03 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi, > Guido Trotter wrote: >> If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no >> problem with the proposed system, why not add to the current >> proposal the fact that the votes cast, altogether, have

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> > A beats B 40:20 > > B beats C 40:20 > > A beats C 40:20 > > D beats A, B and C 40:20 > > > > Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C. On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. It > could be that the best

Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:44 AM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > > >for the ``quorum'' requirement: this is easy. > >require X number of seconds with each anti-second counting against the > >totally number of seconds. > > So, in other words, drop Condorcet and

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> "Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andrew> ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters Andrew> that B voters can cause D beats A. But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below

Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:44:09PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the problem: our vote tallying method is doing double duty. > solution: split it out. But as Anthony pointed out, the current proposal has nearly the exact same properties as if it were split out. (The only exception is that

Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:44 AM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > > >for the ``quorum'' requirement: this is easy. > >require X number of seconds with each anti-second counting against the > >totally number of seconds. > > So, in other words, drop Condorcet and

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 02:25:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:45:31PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > I _think_ the same basic strategy applies: Rank the non-default > > options sincerely, then insert the default option after your "lesser > > of evils" option. > > T

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:46:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Yes, that's true. There are two responses to this: one is that the > benefits are worth the risks; the other is that (hopefully) the incentives > to vote honestly which are ... ? > The only time voting against an option that only re

Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:44:09PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the problem: our vote tallying method is doing double duty. > solution: split it out. But as Anthony pointed out, the current proposal has nearly the exact same properties as if it were split out. (The only exception is that

Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 01:44 AM, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: for the ``quorum'' requirement: this is easy. require X number of seconds with each anti-second counting against the totally number of seconds. So, in other words, drop Condorcet and switch to a simple majority vote instead.

Re: Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:44:09PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > so: the need to get seconds (normally, 5) is in no way, shape, or form a > reflection of the vote tallying method. That's a non-sensical claim. The current system is exactly equivalent to having a ballot that consists of any p

Splitting Aye/Nay from vote tallying (Was: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying)

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:45:31PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > I _think_ the same basic strategy applies: Rank the non-default > > options sincerely, then insert the default option after your "lesser > > of evils" option. > > That doesn't work. Suppose there are three

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:45:31PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > I _think_ the same basic strategy applies: Rank the non-default > options sincerely, then insert the default option after your "lesser > of evils" option. That doesn't work. Suppose there are three options, and everyone does this.

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:20:33AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > With Approval, there's no difference between strategic voting and expressing > your preference. I don't know what you mean. The basic strategy for approval voting (as on electionmethods.org) is to vote for the "lesser of evils"

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 12:48:32PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote: > If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no problem with > the proposed system, why not add to the current proposal the fact that the > votes cast, altogether, have to be at least 2*quorum? Because that would have

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Hi, Guido Trotter wrote: > If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no problem with > the proposed system, why not add to the current proposal the fact that the > votes cast, altogether, have to be at least 2*quorum? This will also ensure > that, before taking a vote into consid

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 02:45:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > And, as I've already posted elsewhere, you'll note there's no problem > at all here if number of votes received is twice the quorum, which, > historically, it almost always is. > I haven't had time to follow all the long discussi

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Hi, Markus Schulze wrote: > In short: The winner according to Manoj's May 15 proposal > can be cyclic even when the voters don't change their minds. Wrong. Reason: The default option is never "keep the current status", it's "further discussion". If we run a vote which results in action A, the vo

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Hi, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > 1. Approval voting has obvious incentives to strategic voting. The > electionmethods people consider it clearly inferior to Condorcet > voting, in part for this reason. Specifically, why don't you > think this is a problem with the proposed method? With

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 12:14:55AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > 1. Approval voting has obvious incentives to strategic voting. Yes, that's true. There are two responses to this: one is that the benefits are worth the risks; the other is that (hopefully) the incentives to vote honestly outweigh

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 08:20:11PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > You wrote (25 May 2003): > > C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped. > > B and A are the only remaining options, and B defeats A. > > B wins. > That's strange! The majority requirement makes the default > option los

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:18:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > >A:C=69:31 > > >Default option: A. > > >Quorum: 30. > On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:18:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped. > Huh? 3. Any (non-default) option wh

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:59:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > From a voting nerd point-of-view, we're not really running a simple > Condorcet vote here, we're actually running two votes simultaneously. One > is an approval vote, where we mark every non-default option as either > approved or not-

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> > The reason is that condorcet has this "problem", > > even with no quorums whatsoever. Martin Schulze's post > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200305/msg00119.html > > illustrates this principal. On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 11:39:06PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: > Huh? Plain

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:50:59PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: > > In my example local quorum causes the following problem: > > dropping an irrelevant option changes which > > relevant option wins the election. > > Global quorum does not

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> Anthony Towns wrote (25 May 2003): > > C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped. > > B and A are the only remaining options, and B defeats A. > > B wins. On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 08:20:11PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > That's strange! The majority requirement makes the default >

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Dear Anthony, I wrote (25 May 2003): >37 ACB >32 BAC >28 CBA >03 CAB >A:B=40:60 >A:C=69:31 >B:C=32:68 >Default option: A. >Quorum: 30. >B meets quorum. >C meets quorum. >Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose A. You wrote (25 May 2003): > C fails to r

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> you wrote (25 May 2003): > > On the other hand, if you could show that the May 15 mechanism > > violates monotonicity, then I'd be opposed to it. On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 06:21:13PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > Situation 1: >Default option: A,Quorum: 30. >40 ACB,32 BAC,28 CB

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> >A:C=69:31 > >Default option: A. > >Quorum: 30. On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:18:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped. Huh? -- Raul

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 06:21:13PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: >37 ACB >32 BAC >28 CBA >03 CAB >A:B=40:60 >A:C=69:31 >B:C=32:68 >Default option: A. >Quorum: 30. >B meets quorum. >C meets quorum. C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped.

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Dear Raul, you wrote (25 May 2003): > On the other hand, if you could show that the May 15 mechanism > violates monotonicity, then I'd be opposed to it. Situation 1: 40 ACB 32 BAC 28 CBA A:B=40:60 A:C=72:28 B:C=32:68 Default option: A. Quorum: 30. B meets quorum.

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 03:34:32PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > here is a simpler example. > >8 ABC >7 BCA >5 CAB > >A:B=13:07 >A:C=08:12 >B:C=15:05 > >Suppose, that the quorum is 10 and the default >option is A. Then the winner according to >Manoj's May 15

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > There is only one election. In this election, 38 voters prefer E to C, > 42 voters prefer D to E and 24 voters prefer D to C. Manoj's May 15 > proposal would choose candidate E. My proposal would choose candidate D. > > But --and th

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Dear Raul, here is a simpler example. 8 ABC 7 BCA 5 CAB A:B=13:07 A:C=08:12 B:C=15:05 Suppose, that the quorum is 10 and the default option is A. Then the winner according to Manoj's May 15 proposal is C. If there was a second election and the voters don't chan

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > But --and this is what I have to criticize-- _if there was a second election_ > then (simply because of the fact that in the first election the default > option has been changed from candidate C to candidate E) Uh, no: if there wer

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Dear Raul, I wrote (25 May 2003): > There is only one election. You wrote (25 May 2003): > This seems to contradict what you said in your 5/24 message: > >Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate E. In the next >elections, when candidate E is the default option, Manoj's >May 15

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 11:52:46AM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > There is only one election. This seems to contradict what you said in your 5/24 message: Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate E. In the next elections, when candidate E is the default option, Manoj's May 15 propo

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 11:52:46AM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal > correctly, A defeats D by 31 in your example. ... It looks like I understood you to be using that term (and, from the balance of your message at least one other term) differently

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Dear Raul, you wrote (25 May 2003): > Quorum of 10, ballot A, default (D), votes: > > 31 A D > 28 D A > > Here, A does not defeat D by 10, but still satisfies > the quorum requirement. As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, A defeats D by 31 in your example. ** I wro

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Dear Nathanael, Raul Miller wrote (25 May 2003): > Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal > implements logically equivalent to your suggestion? I wrote (25 May 2003): > As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, > an option is dropped unless it _directly_ d

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:25:38PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > What Anthony is trying to point out, and what you're pretending to > > ignore, is that what "D wins" means is "no one wins, and the vote > > is thrown out". > no, this is not the same. one is a legitimate

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Raul Miller wrote: > > What Anthony is trying to point out, and what you're pretending to > ignore, is that what "D wins" means is "no one wins, and the vote > is thrown out". no, this is not the same. one is a legitimate, binding vote with a real bona fide winner. the other is a nullification.

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:54:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and > I think we all understand it to mean "causing the system to violate the > Condorcet criterion". That's fine, but that doesn't necessarily make the system

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Raul wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal > implements logically equivalent to your suggestion? Markus Schulze wrote: >As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, >an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default >option with the requi

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal > > implements logically equivalent to your suggestion? On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:54:08AM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, > an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeat

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Dear Raul, you wrote (25 May 2003): > Markus Schulze wrote (25 May 2003): > > I suggest that one should at first calculate the ranking of > > the candidates according to the beat path method and then, > > of those candidates whose beat path to the default option > > meets the quorum, that candidat

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

>"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and I think we all understand it to mean "causing the system to violate the Condorcet criterion". >supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD -- >if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They do

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Raul Miller wrote: > >On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: >> In my example local quorum causes the following problem: >> dropping an irrelevant option changes which >> relevant option wins the election. >> Global quorum does not have this problem. > >The way you've apparent

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 12:25:06AM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: > I suggest that one should at first calculate the ranking of > the candidates according to the beat path method and then, > of those candidates whose beat path to the default option > meets the quorum, that candidate should be elected

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Hallo, Situation 1: 04 ABCDEF 02 ABFDEC 04 AEBFCD 02 AEFBCD 02 BFACDE 02 CDBEFA 04 CDBFEA 12 DECABF 08 ECDBFA 10 FABCDE 06 FABDEC 04 FEDBCA A:B=40:20 A:C=30:30 A:D=30:30 A:E=30:30 A:F=24:36 B:C=34:26 B:D=30:30 B:E=30:30 B:F=38:22

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

John Robinson said: >another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45 > >450x DAB > 45x ADB > >Condorcet: D wins >Proposed: A wins >Amended: D wins You appear to be making the same mistake as Manoj did, which I noted in a message to debian-devel. Under the proposed system (Manoj's), B is

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:17:32AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > Condorcet itself allows certain forms of minority role and prevents > > others. > > example? other than the case of extreme voter apathy, of course. Any time less than a majority wins. Ok, example... 1000 debian voters, b

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Proposed: D wins > > > Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out. > > On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:15:03AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > You mean "D wins". What Anthony is trying to point out, and what you're p

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:40:49PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > correct me if i am wrong, but, isn't quorum suppoed to _prevent_ > > minority rule? now you are saying that minority rule is good, and > > desired? > > What do you mean? i mean to point out a hypocrisy.

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 12:43:44PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > Condorcet: A wins > > Proposed: D wins > > Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out. > > > You mean "D wins". http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/20

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:27:51PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote: >Suppose that, for example, the default option is C >and the quorum is 207. Then the winner is candidate D. For reference, we'd need over 19,000 developers to have a quorum of 207. Can we please keep the examples simple and r

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:36:27PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I.E. when options are fairly close, a > minority finding a particular option unacceptable can change the > outcome of the election. This doesn't come into play so much

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: > In my example local quorum causes the following problem: > dropping an irrelevant option changes which > relevant option wins the election. > Global quorum does not have this problem. Uh, you've got that the wrong way round. If an opti

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 12:43:44PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Condorcet: A wins > Proposed: D wins > Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out. You mean "D wins". Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:40:49PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > correct me if i am wrong, but, isn't quorum suppoed to _prevent_ > minority rule? now you are saying that minority rule is good, and > desired? What do you mean? There are forms of minority rule which quorum prevents, and the

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:40:49PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > Aj has made what seems to me to be a compelling argument that > > > > 1) local quorum is not flawed in this case > > > > 2) The Debian community wants B to win votes of this form. > > > > What we

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Sam Hartman wrote: > > Aj has made what seems to me to be a compelling argument that > > 1) local quorum is not flawed in this case > > 2) The Debian community wants B to win votes of this form. > > What we are saying is that we are giving minorities the power in > certain limited cases to over

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> we have two examples of where per-option quorum is flawed: John> Example 1: John> 2 options + default, R=15. 15 voters. 10 vote ABD, 5 vote John> BDA John> result: Condorcet would select option A Proposed

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

Raul Miller wrote: > > > I should not be put in this position. > > On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:49:08AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > worst case scenario: everyone feels the way you do. no one votes. > > two week discussion period resumes, or the amendment is withdrawn. > > False. i was

  1   2   >