Per G.’s exhortation, I’ve now read this in full, twice, and run through the “I vote as G. does” case that caused a CFJ against the proposed rules.
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I propose the following and pend it with an AP.
>
> Proposal: Clarity Act (AI=3)
> {{{
> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal's substance and
> is ignored when it takes effect.
>
> Enact a new power 3 rule entitled Voting Methods, reading as follows:
> Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which must be
> AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting
> method is that specified by the authorizing authority, or
> first-past-the-post by default.
>
> Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that
> the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the
> ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack thereof.
> For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST;
> for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules.
>
> The valid votes on an Agoran decision are:
> 1. PRESENT;
> 2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at
> least that of this rule; and
> 3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities.
> 4. For any other decision, the valid options.
>
> [This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to
> resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate
> validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid
> retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.]
How does forking this out of the original (and quite old) rule change its
interaction with other rules, under rule 1030 (“Precedence between Rules”)? I
can’t see any obvious differences, but I wanted to draw attention to this in
case others with more insight spot anything.
> Amend Rule 955 by replacing the second paragraph and numbered list with
> the following and by deleting the second bullet in the unnumbered list.
> 1. For an AI-majority decision, let F be the total strength of all
> valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST,
> and AI be the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is
> ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise
> REJECTED.
>
> 2. For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option
> wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff.
> For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it
> were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. In
> case multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes
> at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
> announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such
> option to eliminate; if, for M > 1, all eir possible choices in
> the next M stages would result in the same set of options being
> eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. If an
> entity that is part of a valid vote is not a valid option at
> the end of the voting period, or disqualified by the rule
> providing for the decision, then that entity is eliminated
> prior to the first round of counting.
>
> 3. For a first-past-the-post decision, the outcome is whichever
> option received the highest total strength of valid ballots. In
> case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
> announcement of the decision's resolution, select one of the
> leaders as the outcome.
>
> [No change here, except for removing the valid votes, and clearly
> specifying what happens to options that are no longer valid at the end
> of the voting period.]
>
> If the text "The rule providing for an Agoran Decision by instant runoff
> may disqualify one or more options; in such a case, they are eliminated
> prior to beginning the first stage of the vote count." appears in Rule
> 955, delete it.
>
> [Coordinating amendment to the Election Procedure proposal. H. Assessor,
> please resolve that one first.]
>
> Amend Rule 2127 to read as follows:
> A conditional vote on an Agoran decision is a vote which indicates
> a vote based on some condition(s). A conditional vote is evaluated
> at the end of the voting period and, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of
> the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
> period. If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to
> a valid vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is counted
> as PRESENT.
>
> Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR if
> <X> is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that
> evaluates as specified.
>
> A vote endorsing another person is equivalent to a conditional
> vote evaluating to the vote specified in that person's valid
> ballot on the decision, if any.
This is a new and different definition of ENDORSE than what is presently the
case, though I suspect that for all possible Agoran Decisions under current
rules they are interchangeable.
You’ve done away with RENOUNCE. To my knowledge I’ve never seen it used anyways.
> For an instant runoff decision, a vote consisting of a list, one
> or more entries of which are valid conditional votes, and the
> remaining entries of which are valid options, is a valid
> conditional vote. Such a vote is evaluated by evaluating each
> conditional entry to a list of votes (or an empty list, if it
> evaluates to PRESENT either directly or indirectly), and then
> concatenating those lists with the specified valid options in the
> order they occurred in the original vote.
Is it automatic that if the final list is empty, the ballot is equivalent to
PRESENT?
> [New conditional vote rule clearly specifies what conditional votes are
> valid, as well as providing for evaluation of conditional lists in
> instant runoff in the sensible way.]
>
> Amend Rule 2438 by replacing the paragraph describing Orange
> Ribbons with:
>
> Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
> which no valid ballots were AGAINST (after evaluating
> conditionals), its proposer earns an Orange Ribbon.
>
> Award G. a Transparent Ribbon.
>
> [I accept that it's fair that this may not actually be a problem,
> but clarifying it and converging gamestate does not hurt.]
> }}}
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
