Thue Janus Kristensen writes ("Debian's custom use of Condorcet and
later-no-harm"):
> There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in
> Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution
> §A.6.3 [2].
Yes. I disagree with your analysis, though: I think the root cause is
the requirement that the winning option _strictly beat_ FD.
If A.6.3 were changed to >= then this problem could not arise unless
FD were tied with another option.
Or to put it another way: if we had a straight vote:
4 voters: A > FD
4 voters: FD > A
then I think it is entirely proper to allow the elector with the
casting vote to choose between A and FD.
If there is a tie but no elector with a casting vote, the results
should be FD, obviously.
Whether routine use of the casting vote in TC votes is a good idea is
a different matter. This came up in today's IRC meeting. The obvious
answers are (a) change the size of the committee (b) give the casting
vote to the DPL instead.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21263.36862.87996.166...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
