> 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.
>       (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 N > 1, all eir possible choices in the next N stages would
>           result in the same set of options being eliminated, e need
>           not specify the order of elimination.
Did you intend to use N for both variables? It looks like the two variables are 
used differently (the first N for voting strength, the second N for order of 
elimination), so it may read better if you used two variables.
>       (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.
> }}}
You’ve also removed the clarifiers regarding FAILED QUORUM outcomes et al. This 
doesn’t appear to be intentional.

-o


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to