On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
requirements, given my favorite ballot:
A: strike SC 5
B: trivial
C: strike SC 5 + trivial
D: further discussion
If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I
should
do this because A.6.3 makes my vote for D count against B (and A)
three
times.
Well, no you shouldn't, because you're increasingly likely to end up
with the default option winning, which is what you claim to want
_least_.
No, it doesn't. My preferred option still has just as many votes over
the default option.
I think I failed to get my point across. Let's say that we expect a
close outcome between C and B, but with B slightly ahead. The main
thing I want is to strike SC 5, but B is still a good result. So my
honest preference is CABD. All three other options are better than the
status quo, so I rank them as such in a sincere vote.
Now, I realize that under A.6.3, B and A need to both independently get
thrice the votes of the converse. So, wanting C above those two, I
decide to give the converse a vote. I vote CDAB. That isn't sincere,
but it's smart.
(If you're really thinking about trying to avoid other options winning,
then it's unlikely that "Further discussion" really is your last
preference -- given that implies the opportunity to do a better job of
advocating for your preferred option)
Further discussion == do nothing this vote, preserve the status quo.
Even if further discussion loses, I can always post to -project,
-devel, -vote, whatever to drum up support. I don't need further
discussion to win to keep talking. And remember, I support the trivial
editorial changes.
(Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the
voting
GR; and that we've had the GR on it, which has passed)
I know. I was part of those discussions after all. Don't recall this
particular issue coming up, though.