On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:50 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, I was proposing Instant Runoff earlier when I said this: > > > I would second Daniel to have a rank based voting for ballots which can > have multiple choice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting. > Oh absolutely - sorry I missed it :) - there were too many emails in the thread to read this morning and I simply missed yours, sorry Amogh. And I picked my proposal even without realising you had the same proposal - which might mean it is a really good idea :) And one more comment: > I don’t necessarily think this is a bad outcome. Those 5 people also believe A is a good idea, just not as good as B. Yes. I agree with Wei Lee here. It's not a bad outcome. It's SOME outcome. It has some properties (and also some social aspects to it - like people are less likely to put -1 even if they do not agree with something and few other things. Again - it disregards individual voting power of a single person (if the voting power is something we seek as desired property), it focuses more on the single option support, not whether one person has always the same "strength" of their vote. It assumes that we have collaborating people who will not seek to 'play" the system but simply state their preferences. It's not tamper-proof and if we have bad players, they can definitely abuse it. So yes - if we are at the stage where we are concerned about bad actors trying to play the system to their advantage, then yes, we should choose a system that is tamper proof. To be honest that never occured to me in the past that we are at this stage, but it's a good idea anyway.
