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 or
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 understand, is
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 +0200, Jochen
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 can
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
participation,
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]
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 phase.
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
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 quorum
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 option
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 need a separate
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
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. Since all
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
-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 SSD vote tallying
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
further
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
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 . .
=
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 has a
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
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, 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.
==
PROPOSAL
__
Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
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 (!)
- send the reply to debian-vote
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
--
jbailey Well, if we can't talk about the Hurd here, we may as well
talk about sex.
neal They are often equivalent. functionally
El día 16 may 2003, Matthias Urlichs escribía:
Hi,
Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying:
__
I second this resolution.
The accepted procedure seems to be to
- quote the full resolution
-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 for this GR
29 matches
Mail list logo
