Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Oh, just noticed you didn't like this either. This was intended. If the
>vote requires only 1 vote of support, you can resolve by reporting only 1 of
>the votes of support, even if there are more (because the additional votes
>don't change the outcome). -Goethe
No, you've misunderstood me. That bit's fine. Once again, I'm happy
about reducing the reporting requirement to the logical minimum.
The problem is with how you expressed the requirement. Consider a
"with 2 supporters" situation. Your reporting requirement is
To resolve the decision,
the tally of votes need only include a count of up to N valid
ballots other than the initiator's if the initiator's implicit
support is a valid ballot, or N+1 valid ballots if it is not,
even if there are more.
Presuming that the implicit vote is there, this resolves to
To resolve the decision, the tally of votes need only include
a count of up to 2 valid ballots other than the initiator's,
even if there are more.
What's "up to 2 valid ballots"? I think 1 valid ballot is "up to 2
valid ballots". This suggests that the initiator could report only 1
vote, even if there are 4, and claim that that's a valid tally. I think
what you intended is that the initiator would in this case be required
to report *at least* 2 votes (other than eir own), if there are 2 or more.
The purpose of my proposed revision was to clearly require that the
vote tally include sufficient votes to be sure of the result (while not
requiring the reporting of any more votes than necessary).
-zefram
