> > A beats B 40:20 > > B beats C 40:20 > > A beats C 40:20 > > D beats A, B and C 40:20 > > > > Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C.
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. It > could be that the best strategy, applied by everyone, tends to > produce stalemate. :-/ If that's the case, then I don't see why stalemate isn't a good idea. For example, a General Resolution is something we'd use to overrule the leader. Why should we be overrulling the leader if we can't agree that what we're doing is a good idea? > However, throw in one more ADBC vote, and Concorcet+SSD will declare > A the winner, whereas the proposed method will be stuck on D. That > suggests that Concorcet+SSD is more resistant to this strategy. > (That said, this strategy does appear to be effective against > Concorcet+SSD in many cases.) Or maybe this doesn't represent strategy but sincerity, and the voting system is performing as designed for that circumstance. Note that, historically, we've usually managed to mostly agree on what we need to do. And, we tend to keep talking things through until we've achieved that level of agreement. [For example, we're still discussing what kind of voting system we want, and we started talking about this years ago.] Given that we're a volunteer organization, and that we rely on individual developers to enforce our practices on themselves, I think that's the way things should be. -- Raul
