Hello,
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 08:45:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm going to focus only on your claim that this page shows an example
> of the violation of monotonicity by Manoj's proposal.
>
> Monotonicity (http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC) requires
> "With the relative order
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > "Hard to understand"? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
> > before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
> > can't win. How is this "hard to understand"?
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:50:02AM +020
Hello Raul,
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> "Hard to understand"? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
> before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
> can't win. How is this "hard to understand"?
The thing which is hard to understa
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 proposed sy
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
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 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 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, 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
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
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,
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 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
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
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 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
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:39:08PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> example: quorum of 20, two ballots on the measure, plus the default
> option. two major schools of thought: those that support option A, and
> those that support option B.
If the quorum of 20 is significant, neither school of
Hi,
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/evaluation.htm). See Scenario 2 below.
I'll present two (pe
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> >The amendment uses the concept of a Quorum requirement to inhibit
> >"stealth decisions" by only a handful of developers. While this is a
> >good thing, the per-option quorum from the amendment
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> You actually propose two separate amendments. Please don't do that, it
> smells of politics. :-/
the changes are related, if just 2 was changed, then the majority
requirements in 3 have an undesired side-effect.
let me find that message . .
= http://lists.debian.org
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 default option which do not receive at least R votes
-ranking that option
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>The amendment uses the concept of a Quorum requirement to inhibit
>"stealth decisions" by only a handful of developers. While this is a
>good thing, the per-option quorum from the amendment has a tendency to
>fur
org
--- proposal-srivasta Fri May 16 09:42:59 2003
+++ proposal-jaqque Mon May 19 11:43:13 2003
@@ -1,139 +1,139 @@
PROPOSAL
______
Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SS
Hi, Michael Banck wrote:
>> - sign your response (!)
>
> He did.
Oops, sorry, my mistake. :-(
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Relax, Julie. Everyone will understand.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
We have six seconds (well, five people on public mailing
lists) for the GR labelled: "Constitutional amendment:
Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying". It would not hurt to get a
few more sponsors f
El día 16 may 2003, Matthias Urlichs escribía:
> Hi,
> >> Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying:
> >> __
> >
> > I second this resolution.
>
> The accepted
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> The accepted procedure seems to be to
> - sign your response (!)
He did.
Michael
--
Well, if we can't talk about the Hurd here, we may as well
talk about sex.
They are often equivalent. functionally speaking.
neal: T
Hi,
>> Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying:
>> __
>
> I second this resolution.
The accepted procedure seems to be to
- quote the full resolution
- sign your response (!)
-
> ==
>
> PROPOSAL
> __
>
> Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof
29 matches
Mail list logo
