On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 12:43:44PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Condorcet: A wins
Proposed: D wins
Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out.
You mean D wins.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
In my example local quorum causes the following problem:
dropping an irrelevant option changes which
relevant option wins the election.
Global quorum does not have this problem.
Uh, you've got that the wrong way round. If an option
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:36:27PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I.E. when options are fairly close, a
minority finding a particular option unacceptable can change the
outcome of the election.
This doesn't come into play so much when options
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:27:51PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
Suppose that, for example, the default option is C
and the quorum is 207. Then the winner is candidate D.
For reference, we'd need over 19,000 developers to have a quorum of 207.
Can we please keep the examples simple and
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 06:23:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:24:59PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
with an R of 105.
I presume you mean with a quorum of 105. Which would mean that we have
something like 44100 debian developers.
R = 3Q = 3(n**0.5 / 2)
n =
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 12:43:44PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Condorcet: A wins
Proposed: D wins
Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out.
You mean D wins.
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:40:49PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
correct me if i am wrong, but, isn't quorum suppoed to _prevent_
minority rule? now you are saying that minority rule is good, and
desired?
What do you mean?
i mean to point out a hypocrisy. on the
Anthony Towns wrote:
Proposed: D wins
Amended: no one wins, the vote is thrown out.
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:15:03AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
You mean D wins.
What Anthony is trying to point out, and what you're pretending to
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:07:52AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Out of more than fourty thousand debian developers, less than one hundred
stated that they preferred red over the vote defaulting?
Yes, I'd say that this is the expected behavior.
So you are saying it is acceptable and desirable
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:07:52AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
So you are saying it is acceptable and desirable for there to be no way
to express truely equal preference for Further Discussion and some
other option?
I just wanted to underline what Anthony Towns said.
Here's a quote from the
John Robinson said:
another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45
450x DAB
45x ADB
Condorcet: D wins
Proposed: A wins
Amended: D wins
You appear to be making the same mistake as Manoj did, which I noted in
a message to debian-devel.
Under the proposed system (Manoj's), B is
Hallo,
Situation 1:
04 ABCDEF
02 ABFDEC
04 AEBFCD
02 AEFBCD
02 BFACDE
02 CDBEFA
04 CDBFEA
12 DECABF
08 ECDBFA
10 FABCDE
06 FABDEC
04 FEDBCA
A:B=40:20
A:C=30:30
A:D=30:30
A:E=30:30
A:F=24:36
B:C=34:26
B:D=30:30
B:E=30:30
B:F=38:22
Here's the nightmare scenario, under Manoj's amendment, which I think
John Robinson may have been trying to come up with. Consider two options,
A and B, and the default option D. Let the quorum requirement R=20.
39 people show up to vote. These are their preferences (most prefered
on the
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 12:25:06AM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
I suggest that one should at first calculate the ranking of
the candidates according to the beat path method and then,
of those candidates whose beat path to the default option
meets the quorum, that candidate should be elected
breaking Condorcet isn't a meaningful thing to say. Adding quorum and
I think we all understand it to mean causing the system to violate the
Condorcet criterion.
supermajority obviously produce different outcomes to Cloneproof SSD --
if they didn't, there'd be no point adding them. They don't
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:27:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here's the nightmare scenario, under Manoj's amendment, which I think
John Robinson may have been trying to come up with. Consider two options,
A and B, and the default option D. Let the quorum requirement R=20.
39 people
Dear Raul,
you wrote (25 May 2003):
Markus Schulze wrote (25 May 2003):
I suggest that one should at first calculate the ranking of
the candidates according to the beat path method and then,
of those candidates whose beat path to the default option
meets the quorum, that candidate should
It may be noted that my example involves on a fair number of people
ranking A *equal* to the default option.
It's possible to prohibit this, which would certainly simplify some
things. However, I think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to
consider something to be of equal value to the
Raul Miller said:
Which makes at least some sense: only 19 people actively approved of A,
while 20 actively approved of B. Granted, this mechanism only kicks in
for votes with very low turnout or where significant numbers of people
don't actively approve of options, but I'm not convinced that
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal
implements logically equivalent to your suggestion?
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:54:08AM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly,
an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the
Raul wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal
implements logically equivalent to your suggestion?
Markus Schulze wrote:
As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly,
an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default
option with the required
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yep. But of the 20 who actively approved of B, 19 prefered A.
Meanwhile, nobody actively opposed A, but 19 people actively opposed B.
True. We do not require unanimous agreement in such cases.
Choosing B is a good way to
22 matches
Mail list logo
