The purpose of this message is not to provoke debate. This is for people who want to know where I think things are going. If there's something important that's not listed here, please tell me [us] about why it's important.
I'd rather we delay debate on each of these issues until we have a draft incorporates that issue. I'd like to deal with these issues in roughly this order. Here's a list of outstanding issues to deal with on the voting amendment: [0] Review the current A.6 draft for potential flaws. [1] Incorporate Branden's "explicit tie" recommendation. [I've not heard anyone objecting to it, and I can't see that it opens any possibilities for insincerity. Also, the electionmethods people suggested we do this.] [2] Incorporate the changes to A.3 (from Manoj's draft in October). [3] Incorporate a change throughout the constitution from "Concorde" to "Condorcet", since we're changing the mechanics of the mechanism. [4] Incorporate changes based on some other suggestions by the electionmethods people: They've suggested that 4.2.3 and A.5 might be too vague. 4.2.3 isn't too bad right now: (a) we have a good way of listing all votes, (b) "no longer in doubt" should mean that enough of all voters have voted that even if every remaining voter voted in opposition to the winner the outcome would be the same. Likewise, proposals can be re-introduced after they're withdrawn under A.5. Still, if I [or someone else] can suggest a good way to clean these up, I'd like to incorporate that into the draft. They've suggested that the distinction we make between amendments and original proposals is inappropriate for a ranked voting system, and that we should relax this distinction. They've suggested that we should prevent the sponsors of a proposal from forcing serialized decision making, since ranked voting is a better way of making those kinds of comparisons. -- Raul
