2014-02-28 17:50 GMT+01:00 Ian Jackson :
> Thue Janus Kristensen writes ("Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and
> later-no-harm"):
> > I am not completely sure, but I think both ways accomplish the same
> thing,
> > if you always only use the >= criteri
Neil McGovern writes ("Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm"):
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:50:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
> > there less incentive to manipulate the syst
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:50:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
> there less incentive to manipulate the system by voting FD.
>
I'm just wondering, what was the purpose behind treating FD as a special
case in the first place? Cou
Thue Janus Kristensen writes ("Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and
later-no-harm"):
> I am not completely sure, but I think both ways accomplish the same thing,
> if you always only use the >= criterium.
>
> My way seems more flexible though, since you can
you suggest, I don't have a
model in my head to understand all the consequences.
Regards, Thue
2014-02-27 20:20 GMT+01:00 Ian Jackson :
> Thue Janus Kristensen writes ("Debian's custom use of Condorcet and
> later-no-harm"):
> > There is what I consider a
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm"):
> This change would also fix a different problem that came up during the
> debate, namely one of the problems with the 2:1 majority required for a TC
> override. Currently, if we have a
Thue Janus Kristensen writes ("Debian's custom use of Condorcet and
later-no-harm"):
> There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in
> Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution
> §A.6.3 [2].
Yes. I disagree
Thue Janus Kristensen writes:
> So in the init system vote example with my rule modification, D, U and
> FD would end up in the Schwartz set, Bdale would choose D, and the final
> result would then be FD, because D doesn't beat FD. So this rule change
> means that U cannot win unfairly due to str
Hi,
Thue Janus Kristensen:
> I don't know enough about Michael Ossipoff's suggested complete
> change of voting system to have an opinion about that.
>
It's not a "complete change". The basic Condorcet method is unchanged.
We merely change (fix?) what we do when there's no single winner.
I have
>From that discussion (
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/05/msg00012.html ),
Michael Ossipoff mentions a similar solution for the "beat default"
criterium problem as my suggestion, except for a different voting system:
> Do a rank-balloting among all of the options, with D as one of the
o
Hi,
Markus Schulze:
> the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion
> are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet
> method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come
> from the order of its checks.
>
That may be so, but our method of removing choices that fail t
Hallo,
the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion
are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet
method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come
from the order of its checks.
Markus Schulze
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
wi
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Thue Janus Kristensen wrote:
> There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in
> Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution
> §A.6.3 [2].
This also reminded me of
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2
There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in
Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution
§A.6.3 [2].
The problem was visible in the recent CTTE init system vote, as noted by fx
Steve Langasek [3]. Given options
* systemd (D)
* upstart (U)
* F
14 matches
Mail list logo
