On 09-Oct-98 Ian Jackson wrote: > A.6(5)(iii): > This elimination procedure is repeated, moving down ballot papers to > 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. preferences as required, until one option gets > more than half of the `first' preferences. > > It seems to me to be clear that the intent is that if a ballot has no > remaining preferences then it doesn't count when considering which > option might have "more than half of the `first' preferences". Such a > ballot couldn't be said to have a "`first' preference" any more, > surely ? Actually, I've seen the STV method done in such a way that after a ballot loses all it's "first preferences" it is still counted as a no-preference (ie. as an abstention of sorts) hence my question. I think any questions on this can be settled by president but, as of yet, we don't have president so I thought I'd ask.
> A.6(8): > 8.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. > > The "winning option" here refers to the outcome of steps 1-7, clearly, I've learned, the hard way, that "clearly" usually doesn't apply to things like this. They turn out to be worm holes to cause problems :( > and 8 is intended to _modify_ the outcome. So, if Concorde doesn't > produce a clear-cut answer we use STV amongst the remaining options, > and then we have a putative `winner'. If this winner didn't actually > have enough ballots which prefer it to the default, then the default > option is declared the winner. There's nothing saying we should go > and restart the ballot counting with STV instead, or something. The Yes. I saw my mistake as I was reading and rereading the constituion. But since nobody commented on the thread, I just let the matter drop instead of correcting my assuptions to the list. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* =========================================================================
