On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
> (Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
> particularly good when the most important thing is to
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the mos
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:15:52AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >What would ever give you the idea that we try to avoid schisms?
> Obviously you don't. :-) *I* do, which is why I like approval voting.
> Still wondering how the voting system was picked.
It's the state of the art in election s
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
>
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
>
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm for one list of s
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
> Still wondering how the voting system was picked.
>
... didn't you get my email?
--
Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
pgpO5TNCqcVdh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[Idiotic Cc: deleted]
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:32:27PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
> > offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer
> >
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> [Idiotic Cc: deleted]
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:32:27PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
> > > offered at htt
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:13:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> In the event that this counter-amendment should become active, I
> propose the following amendment to it, replacing its complete text:
>
> "Craig Sanders is a louse, and shall be crushed by a falling cow."
I'd first have to see th
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:12:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *gibber*
Sorry, comes of tossing my full rewrite draft and redoing it by
tweaking the earlier version.
--
Raul
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
>
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
I'm not sure if you're talking about the existing constitution or
the proposed change. You don't say. If you're really in
This draft fixes some naming silliness.
If this draft is good enough, I'll try incorporating the changes to A.3
in the next draft.
If anyone feels that this is too hard to understand, please write me a
letter indicating the first part that you have trouble understanding,
and something about the n
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org/evaluation
On Nov 15, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I won't push my own views any further; this isn't really meant to start
> a long argument over preferred election methods, which are as bad as OS
> wars. But thanks for pointing out the website which you made your
> decision from; it's all was I really askin
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:32:27PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> please do not second this amendment until & unless JG's proposed GR
> gains enough support to require a vote.
FYI: if John accepts your amendment, it doesn't need seconds.[1]
[1] Constitution A.1.2
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:28:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> > by this margin?
>
> Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GR
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:12:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
> >Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:15:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
> >the weakest defeats are eliminated.
> >
> >Definition: The strength of a
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
>
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
200+ plus years of watching broken U.S. elections.
--
G. Branden Robinson|A celibate clergy is an es
Hi,
Raul Miller:
>iv. If eliminating the weakest propositions would not eliminate
>all votes, a new Schwartz set is found based on the newly
>revised set of propositions.
>
Note that ALL propositions are considered here, not just those
participating in the Schwartz
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> > Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GRs, and
> > a "none of the above" that equates to further discussion in DPL elections.
> > If the default option wins, we have another vote, where proposers of that
> > option can either argue their case be
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
> The site's claim that Approval voting doesn't satisfy the Condorcet
> Criterion is facile and inaccurate. With approval voting, for every
> preference order there are multiple 'cut-offs' which can be chosen by
> voters based on strength of preference and other criteria,
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
>
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
>
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm for one list of s
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
> Still wondering how the voting system was picked.
>
... didn't you get my email?
--
Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
msg01926/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:15:52AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >What would ever give you the idea that we try to avoid schisms?
> Obviously you don't. :-) *I* do, which is why I like approval voting.
> Still wondering how the voting system was picked.
It's the state of the art in election s
[Idiotic Cc: deleted]
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:32:27PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
> > offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer
> >
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> [Idiotic Cc: deleted]
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:32:27PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
> > > offered at htt
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:13:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> In the event that this counter-amendment should become active, I
> propose the following amendment to it, replacing its complete text:
>
> "Craig Sanders is a louse, and shall be crushed by a falling cow."
I'd first have to see th
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:12:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *gibber*
Sorry, comes of tossing my full rewrite draft and redoing it by
tweaking the earlier version.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
>
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
I'm not sure if you're talking about the existing constitution or
the proposed change. You don't say. If you're really in
This draft fixes some naming silliness.
If this draft is good enough, I'll try incorporating the changes to A.3
in the next draft.
If anyone feels that this is too hard to understand, please write me a
letter indicating the first part that you have trouble understanding,
and something about the n
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
Voting algorithms should obey some stringent anti-politicking and
plain-common-sense restrictions.
See http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.
On Nov 15, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I won't push my own views any further; this isn't really meant to start
> a long argument over preferred election methods, which are as bad as OS
> wars. But thanks for pointing out the website which you made your
> decision from; it's all was I really askin
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:32:27PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> please do not second this amendment until & unless JG's proposed GR
> gains enough support to require a vote.
FYI: if John accepts your amendment, it doesn't need seconds.[1]
[1] Constitution A.1.2
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:28:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> > by this margin?
>
> Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GR
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:12:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
> >Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:15:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
> >the weakest defeats are eliminated.
> >
> >Definition: The strength of a
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
>
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
200+ plus years of watching broken U.S. elections.
--
G. Branden Robinson|A celibate clergy is an es
Hi,
Raul Miller:
>iv. If eliminating the weakest propositions would not eliminate
>all votes, a new Schwartz set is found based on the newly
>revised set of propositions.
>
Note that ALL propositions are considered here, not just those
participating in the Schwartz
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> > Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GRs, and
> > a "none of the above" that equates to further discussion in DPL elections.
> > If the default option wins, we have another vote, where proposers of that
> > option can either argue their case be
Hi,
Nathanael Nerode:
> The site's claim that Approval voting doesn't satisfy the Condorcet
> Criterion is facile and inaccurate. With approval voting, for every
> preference order there are multiple 'cut-offs' which can be chosen by
> voters based on strength of preference and other criteria,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:54:59AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Another alternative might have been to have the default option win if
> > > it's _ever_ a member of the Scwartz set, rather than if it's a member
> > > of the Schwartz set after the sequential dropping phases are complete.
> Th
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:23:13AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >v. If this new Schwartz set contains only one option, that
> > option wins.
> >
> As per the definition, there is no such thing as a one-option Schwartz
> set, so actually you'll have to restart with step 5. You
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> > I'd rather run the algorithm with the full set of votes first, and _then_,
> > if the default option wins, have a separate rule on what to do next.
>
> Nope: see the first vote listed above. You _don't_ want to declare a
> result when the majority of developers would prefer
43 matches
Mail list logo
