On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:58 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=1)
> {{{
> This looks pretty good overall. I like the generalization of voting
> strength. However, I believe this proposal will be ineffective with AI=1 -
> several of the rules amended have Power greater than 1.

Quite right. I retract this proposal. I also discovered an issue in my
victory scam proposal, so I retract New Speaker too.

Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=3, coauthor: o)
Amend rule 2422 (Voting Strength) by inserting "on an Agoran decision"
after each occurrence of "entity".

Amend rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by replacing the second paragraph with:
      On any Agoran decision to adopt a Proposal, the holder of the
      office of Prime Minister has voting strength one greater than
      e would have if e did not hold the office.

Amend rule 955 by replacing (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing
the text with:

      Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
      voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The strength of
      a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who cast it on that Agoran

      The following voting methods are defined:

      (1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST.  Let F be
          the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision,
A be          the same for AGAINST, and AI becthe adoption index of
          decision.  The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1
          (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.

      (2) Instant runoff: the valid votes are ordered lists of
          options, and the outcome is whichever option wins according
          to the standard definition of instant runoff. For this
purpose, a          ballot of strength N is treated as if it were N
distinct ballots
          expressing the same preferences. In case multiple valid
          options tie for the lowest number of votes at any stage, the
          vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the
          decision's resolution, select one such option to eliminate; if,
          for M > 1, all eir possible choices in the next M stages would
          result in the same set of options being eliminated, e need
          not specify the order of elimination.

      (3) First-past-the-post (default): the valid votes are the
          options, and the outcome is whichever option received the
          highest total strength of valid ballots. In case of a tie, the vote
          collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's
          resolution, select one of the leaders as the outcome.

      The previous notwithstanding:

      - If there is more than one option, and the number of valid
        ballots is less than quorum, the outcome is instead FAILED
      - PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome
        except counting towards quorum.
      - If there are no valid options, the outcome is null.

      The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and
      cannot change thereafter.


Proposal: New Speaker (AI=1){{{Enact a new Power-1 rule reading:
      Upon enactment of this rule, Alexis wins and then this rule
repeals itself.


Reply via email to