On May 25, 2019, at 5:24 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Some bugs:
>
> * R955 specifies invalid options are eliminated before the process
> starts; it's probably good to keep that.
>
> * The voting strength of each ballot should matter.
>
> * When determining whether an option has a majority, votes
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 21:33, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 21:24 +, James Cook wrote:
> > I couldn't resist making my own attempt. It's a lot wordier than
> > yours, unfortunately, but it addresses these points and omd's first
> > point. Maybe there's some middle gro
On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 21:24 +, James Cook wrote:
> I couldn't resist making my own attempt. It's a lot wordier than
> yours, unfortunately, but it addresses these points and omd's first
> point. Maybe there's some middle ground that's less wordy.
>
> 2. For an instant runoff decision, the vote
> I intend to propose the following change to rule 955, in place of the current
> definition of IRV:
>
> > The outcome of an Instant Runoff decision is:
> >
> > a. If a single option has the absolute majority of valid ballots specifying
> > it as the first entry on the list, then the outcome is t
A few issues with the wording:
> > b. The option with the fewest valid ballots specifying it as the first
> > entry on the list is identified, and the outcome is the outcome of an
> > Instant Runoff decision as if that option had been removed from each valid
> > ballot that contained it.
It's
Hi folks.
The ruleset for Agora handwaves the definition of instant runoff voting. From
rule 955 (“Determining the Will of Agora”):
> For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option wins
> according to the standard definition of instant runoff.
I assume this was originally done
6 matches
Mail list logo
