On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:51:26AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Hey Adrian,
Hi Barak,
> > When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
> > there are plenty of votes like
> > 1---
> >
> > It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
> > and that their ballot was wro
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:00:45PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
> > worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
> > understand how to vot
Hey Adrian,
> When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
> there are plenty of votes like
> 1---
>
> It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
> and that their ballot was wrongly filled due to a
> lack of understanding how our voting system works.
That's really intere
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
> worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
> understand how to vote in a way that their ballot matches what
> they want to express.
>
> When
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
> deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting
> system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution)
> each with its
Hi Simon,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:15 PM Simon Richter wrote:
>
> You are making two bold assumptions here: that the options are on a
> single one-dimensional axis
I don't think I said that—nor do I believe it. My question was about
the ballot, which more or less imposes a linear ranking.
> and
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-di
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 06:35:52AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
>...
> 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?
This
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:33 AM Barak A. Pearlmutter
wrote:
>
> Moving FD around in the
> ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott.
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 moderat
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 at 11:57, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
> > and have a quorum on the number of people that vote ...
>
> A quorum on the number of people who vote means that a vote aga
What you say is all correct, although I suppose people might be able
to get at least a rough poll of voter preferences if they actually
care. Assuming people don't know enough details about others'
preferences to vote strategically is basically security by obscurity
so I wouldn't want to rely upon
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>...
> A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
> and have a quorum on the number of people that vote
>...
A quorum on the number of people who vote means that a vote against the
proposal counts for the quorum.
Assuming
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:45:15AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> Let's say a cohort of voters prefers option APRICOT to option BANANA,
> but would like neither (FD) even better. However they are well aware
> that there's no way FD will win.
>
> It is possible that if they vote their true
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> There are 2 ways the FD option has an effect on the result.
> The first option is the quorum requirement. For a GR the quorum is
> 3*Q, which is around 47 for this vote. 3*Q people need to put the
> option above FD to meet the quorum, or the option is dropped.
> But the re
14 matches
Mail list logo
