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
Hi,
Sven Luther wrote:
> But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have insider
> knowledge
A situation where a vote would be successful, but fail for lack of
participation, often requires no insider knowledge at all to be recognizeable
as such. In that situation, the opponents can
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have insider
> knowledge, the votes are secrets, and the results published only after
> the election is closed.
This doesn't change the fact that there is a chance that by voting
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:09:43AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Hi,
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have insider
> > knowledge
>
> A situation where a vote would be successful, but fail for lack of
> participat
Hi,
Sven Luther wrote:
> If there is such a lack of participation that even our low quorum
> requirement is not meet, then is this a bad thing ?
Yes -- because it encourages people not to vote in that situation.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discla
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:27:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here, the vote(s) for B caused A to win.
>
> Other examples are possible (for example: 19 ABD, 1 BDA).
>
> > > To make your proposal work right, we'd need a separate quorum
> > > determination phase which is independent of the voting
Hi,
Nick Phillips wrote:
> If a winning option would be discarded due to quorum requirements, then
> I think the vote should probably be considered void.
That seems to be the best choice.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was sele
Just a quick suggestion if people are interested.
If the quorum requirement is Q, and X votes are cast, and X is less than
Q, add (Q - X) votes to the ballot which rank the default option soly
first, and rank no other options, and continue the ballot as per usual.
I'm not sure if it solves pro
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:57:13PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:27:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Here, the vote(s) for B caused A to win.
> > Other examples are possible (for example: 19 ABD, 1 BDA).
> > > > To make your proposal work right, we'd need a separate
On Wed, 21 May 2003 10:12:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > At this point; under my version; I can express my opinions
> > with no fear of harming my candidate. Under your amendment; if I do
> > not vote; the vote is nullified. However, if I vote against the
> > option -- the opt
On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:28:37 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:09:43AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Content-Description: signed data
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sven Luther wrote:
>> > But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have
>> > insider knowledge
>
On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:57:13 +1200, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:27:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Here, the vote(s) for B caused A to win.
>>
>> Other examples are possible (for example: 19 ABD, 1 BDA).
>>
>> > > To make your proposal work right, we'd n
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:57:13PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I don't believe that it's acceptable for an otherwise beaten option
> to win due the the otherwise winning option being discarded due
> to a quorum requirement, as John suggests might happen.
Under the proposed system, we would do ex
On Tue, 20 May 2003 22:43:59 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, You actually propose two separate amendments. Please don't do
> that, it smells of politics. :-/
> John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> - 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other
> - than the defa
To: to debian-devel dropped. let's keep the discussion on -vote.
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have insider
> > knowledge, the votes are secrets, and the results published only after
> >
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:05:47AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi,
>
> If the "winning" option is discarded due to quorum requirements, then
> given that all non-default options have the *same* quorum requirement,
> this is exactly what would happen.
>
I think this is not inherently true. Sinc
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Expressed in terms of scenario: A vs B, quorum 20
> > >
> > > Case 1:
> > >
> > > 15 ABD
> > > D wins
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:30:29PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > 15
> That's what I said, though perhaps too tersely. D is the
> default option. "D wins
Voting geekery, -devel dropped.
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:57:29PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Nick Phillips wrote:
> > If a winning option would be discarded due to quorum requirements, then
> > I think the vote should probably be considered void.
> That seems to be the best choice.
If the
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:53:33AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> let's see if we can make the per-item quorum behave like the per-vote
> quorum where a vote _against_ an item causes that item to win:
> quorum of R=12. two options, plus the default option. a single voter.
> 1 BA
> A.6.2. I
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 06:59:51PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:05:47AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If the "winning" option is discarded due to quorum requirements, then
> > given that all non-default options have the *same* quorum requirement,
> > this is exactly
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:57:13PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
I don't believe that it's acceptable for an otherwise beaten option
to win due the the otherwise winning option being discarded due
to a quorum requirement, as John suggests might happen.
Under the propo
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> For reference, "back to the Condorcet standard" is not what we
> want here. The default option allows allows us to combine condorcet
> preferential voting, with an approval-vote style calculation of majorities
> or acceptability.
the proposal uses Condorcet as a standard,
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:53:33AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> thus, in the case of a single voter AGAINST the default option, the
> default option wins. this is not very likely, but this is also the case.
You can't vote against the default option -- you vote against something
by submitti
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:10:56AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> = http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC
> =
> = Monotonicity Criterion (MC)
> = Statement of Criterion
> = With the relative order or rating of the other candidates
> = unchanged, voting a candidate higher sh
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:27:53PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> 1) Has anyone developed standard terminology for:
> a) The proposed amendment to the Debian Constitution formally offered
> by Manoj
> b) The proposed amendment to (a) above as offered by John
I don't understand this question. Ar
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Why do you believe it's meaningful to distinguish between "the default
> option wins" and "the entire vote is thrown out"? When is status quo
> != the default option?
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
. . .
7. The decision will
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:34:20AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> the proposal uses Condorcet as a standard, and tries to add Quota and
> Supermajority options in a way that does not break Condorcet.
"breaking" Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and
supermajority obviou
28 matches
Mail list logo
