It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes is
acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote indicates
preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
天火狐
On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting. Is it a
> replacement
> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list? If it's the first
> option
> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
> vote doesn't
> >> end up counting towards quorum? And what happens if PRESENT is the
> majority?
> >> is everyone else eliminated? I'm not sure if the "standard definition
> of instant
> >> runoff" covers this. So let's test that in some slightly-less
> essential offices.
> >> Fun!!
> >
> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
> >
> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
> then my
> > vote:
> >
> > P: {A, B, C}
> > Q: {A, B, C}
> > R: {A, B, C}
> >
> > S: {D, E, F}
> > T: {D, E, F}
> > U: {D, E, F}
> >
> > Z: {G, A}
> >
> > Me: {endorse Z, D}
> >
> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
> >
> > G is eliminated.
> >
> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
> second
> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
> >
> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
> endorsing Z's
> > second choice, and A wins.
> >
> > Which is right, if either?
> >
> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
> are
> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
> But
> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
