On Tue, 25 May 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Well, now there are four of us who've replied so it seems we're not
> going to be lacking in participants, and no-one has criticised my
> draft, so I hereby formally propose the resolution below. If I don't
> hear any objections I'll call for a vote in a
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !"):
> If X wants to minimize potential losses (and X has certain knowledge that
> no other votes will be cast), X should cooperate.
Oh, I forgot to say:
`Minimise potential losses' (ie, aim for the least bad worst case) is
one
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !"):
> I don't see that removing the word "strictly" has this effect at all.
>
> The quorum for committee votes is 2, which means that each option must
> receive 2 votes preferring it over the default option or it is ignored.
Yes,
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:23:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Let us suppose that:
>
> * There are two voters X and Y, whose real utilities are
> Voter X: A=+10 (`Good')Voter Y: B=+10
> B= 0 (`OK')A= 0
>FD= -5 FD= -5
>
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !"):
> If you approve of two options but like one better than another, you're
> not being penalized if the "liked, but not liked as much" option wins
> over your favorite. Instead, you're being rewarded -- there weren't
> enough vo
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 07:49:23PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Certainly. What I'm saying is that our voting system should not
> discourage people from expressing this in their votes. The implied
> promise of preference voting systems is that later preferences never
> count against earlier ones,
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !"):
> amended a ballot A:B:FD count against A in A-vs-B due to the the
^can
Ian.
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !"):
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:53:41AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > IME people nearly always put FD ahead of the options they disagree
> > with.
>
> However, it's possible for people to think that two options
> are acceptable,
8 matches
Mail list logo
