Russ Allbery dijo [Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:17:10AM -0800]: > > Suppose no other options are present. Judit's option wins, yours is > > second, and NotA is third. A simplistic reading would mean, "merge > > Judit's proposed changes in the constitution". However, more people > > voted 3 and 4 above NotA -- Shouldn't they also be included? Do they > > warrant a separate GR now?
OK, after reading a bit deeper, I find that Judit's changes are basically Sam's minus 3 and 4, so it translates to my example not being realistic... But anyway, my rationale for it allows for some imagination ;-) I wanted to point out that IMO bundling changes is best avoided. > I believe that the combinatorics (putting each possible combination on the > ballot) is the correct approach given our voting system and given the > range of possible opinions. Right -- the voting system allows for this quite well. But it requires twisting each of the voters' minds around a set of sometimes convoluted changesets that might lead to fatigue. The practice of not bundling leads to simpler texts and easier evaluation and understanding by those not closely following the discussions. > To see why, suppose there is a voter who is happy with private votes > provided that the secretary decisions can be overridden, but if secretary > decisions cannot be overridden, they do not want private votes. If the > two votes are unbundled, that voter cannot vote their preference, and > their only option is to either add a new ballot option on one of the votes > to do both at once or vote both below NotA. > > If all three options (secretary changes only, private vote only, secretary > changes plus private vote) are on the same ballot, that voter can then > accurately vote their opinion by putting the last above NotA and the > second below NotA. The point of using a clone-proof voting system is to > allow us to capture preferences like that by feeling free to add > additional options to the ballot. > > I completely agree with separating *unrelated* changes, but the whole > point of this discussion is that some folks believe the changes are > closely related, to the extent that one of the changes may not be > desirable unless the other one is made at the same time. I think I get what you mean... I still cannot see the deep relation between the two, but I guess that requires me to spend more time in last week's threads than what I am willing to :-\
