Re: Strategic Voting Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes: Kurt> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: Kurt> One of the problems, and I consider that to be the most Kurt> important one, is about the stratigic vote that you can do. Kurt> For example,

Re: Strategic Voting Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: > Kurt> The solution to this problem is moving the majority check > Kurt> later in the process, so that option B would have been dropped > Kurt> first. If they did this stratigic voting in that case both > Kurt> options

Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering

Hi Ian, On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:20:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > The intent of this change is that if the Condorcet(CSSD) winner does > not meet the supermajority requirement, it is still the winning > outcome of the whole vote, but only as a non-binding statement of > opinion. > > So for

Re: Strategic Voting Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +, Sam Hartman wrote: > In conclusion, endless discussion is not a win. And I think this > strategic voting fix may bring us there. If I were to put together an > amendment that fixed the strictly greater issue but did not tackle the > strategic voting