> Oh absolutely - sorry I missed it :) Actually I started to do research and write my response before you responded - so the issue is that I did not have a chance to read your message :) ... Awfully sorry for that Amogh... Mental note to myself - good thing to read the new answers before you press send on yours ;)
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:54 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >
