"Timo" == Timo Röhling <timo@gaussglocke.de> writes:
I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
with FD. It'd probably help.
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
with FD. It'd probably help.
FD effectively is the same as "none of the above".
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
with FD. It'd probably help.
FD effectively is the same as "none of the above".
You might believe that the subject is stupid and that the horse is dead
and we shop stop flogging it, but the fact that we got it to a vote in
the first place proves that there are people who disagree with you, and
they will translate NOTA winning into "we haven't found the right answer
yet, so let's try this again, for real this time".
That's further discussion, just under a different name. I'd rather have
an option that is honest with everyone and declares what will in effect happen.
If you want an option that says "no, not now, not ever", you need to put
it on the ballot.
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:49:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along with FD. It'd probably help.
FD effectively is the same as "none of the above".
Not really, what FD means is: "I vote yes for all of options I ranked higher than it, and no for all I ranked lower".
Our voting scheme is a mix of Condorcet, and yes/no. An option must get at least 50% or 75% of "yes" votes, no matter if it's Condorcet winner.
This meaning is mostly destroyed by interpreting FD as "Further Discussion" -- it makes people put all other options on the front, instead of just ones they agree with.
There are 2 ways the FD option has an effect on the result.
The first option is the quorum requirement. For a GR the quorum is
3*Q, which is around 47 for this vote. 3*Q people need to put the
option above FD to meet the quorum, or the option is dropped.
But the reason for yes/no is the majority requirement. In this GR
all options have a majority ratio of 1. This means more people
need to put the option above of FD than people who put the option
below FD, or the option gets dropped.
Note that you can rank the option the same as FD, which is neither
yes nor no. So it's more than 50% of those votes that voted yes or
no for that option that need to vote yes for the option to be
considered.
There are also 2:1 and 3:1 majority requirements, which you could
translate as 66.6% and 75% need to say yes.
Let's say a cohort of voters prefers option APRICOT to option BANANA,
but would like neither (FD) even better. However they are well aware
that there's no way FD will win.
It is possible that if they vote their true preference,
FD > APRICOT > BANANA
then BANANA will win, while if they vote
APRICOT > FD > BANANA
then APRICOT will win, due to majority/quorum issues. In other words,
they are penalized for voting honestly.
...
But the reason for yes/no is the majority requirement. In this GR
all options have a majority ratio of 1. This means more people
need to put the option above of FD than people who put the option
below FD, or the option gets dropped.
...
From the latest systemd GR[1]:
= 1 is not strictly great, and an option both passing the majorityrequirement and being dropped for failing the majority at the same
Kurt
...
A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
and have a quorum on the number of people that vote
...
Kurt
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
and have a quorum on the number of people that vote ...
A quorum on the number of people who vote means that a vote against the proposal counts for the quorum.
Assuming a quorum high enough, this gives a coordinated boycott of the
vote a higher chance of defeating a proposal than voting against it.
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution)
each with its own criteria and threshold and (due to Arrow's Theorem) unavoidable flaws, and every feature of this sort increases the
system's attack surface to both strategic voting and to just plain
doing the wrong thing given honest votes. Moving FD around in the
ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott.
I have been a DD for nearly 20 years and I have not yet understood how
we vote. Before I joined Debian, I thought that the way Germany votes
for the Bundestag is a complex method.
Greetings
Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting
system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution)
each with its own criteria and threshold and (due to Arrow's Theorem) unavoidable flaws, and every feature of this sort increases the
system's attack surface to both strategic voting and to just plain
doing the wrong thing given honest votes. Moving FD around in the
ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott.
Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 14:07:13+0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution) each with its own criteria and threshold and (due to Arrow's Theorem) unavoidable flaws, and every feature of this sort increases the
system's attack surface to both strategic voting and to just plain
doing the wrong thing given honest votes. Moving FD around in the ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott.
I have been a DD for nearly 20 years and I have not yet understood how
we vote. Before I joined Debian, I thought that the way Germany votes
for the Bundestag is a complex method.
Greetings
It's probably because I'm a mathematician, but I really enjoy our voting system, despite it also having flaws.
For people living in a country like Germany where the shares of representation in parliament are based on the nationwide vote,
Debian is usually the first and only contact with anything
like Condorcet.
Moving FD around in the
ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott.
...
would it be better for a voting system to
quadruple-count, or otherwise strengthen, options voters rank in the middle—thereby recognizing that a compromise between two or more sides
is always a prerequisite for peace?
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
...
Let's say a cohort of voters prefers option APRICOT to option BANANA,
but would like neither (FD) even better. However they are well aware
that there's no way FD will win.
It is possible that if they vote their true preference,
FD > APRICOT > BANANA
then BANANA will win, while if they vote
APRICOT > FD > BANANA
then APRICOT will win, due to majority/quorum issues. In other words,
they are penalized for voting honestly.
When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
there are plenty of votes like
1-------
It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
and that their ballot was wrongly filled due to a
lack of understanding how our voting system works.
Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting
system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution)
each with its own criteria and threshold and (due to Arrow's Theorem) unavoidable flaws, and every feature of this sort increases the
system's attack surface to both strategic voting and to just plain
doing the wrong thing given honest votes. Moving FD around in the
ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott.
Since voting systems are necessarily vulnerable (Arrow's Theorem!) our objective cannot be perfection, but rather good performance under
realistic conditions.
...
Cheers,
--Barak.
Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be moreWhich is?
worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
understand how to vote in a way that their ballot matches what
they want to express.
When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
there are plenty of votes like
1-------
It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
and that their ballot was wrongly filled due to aDo you mean they should have also ranked some less-preferred options above
lack of understanding how our voting system works.
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
understand how to vote in a way that their ballot matches what
they want to express.
When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
there are plenty of votes like
1-------
It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,Which is?
and that their ballot was wrongly filled due to aDo you mean they should have also ranked some less-preferred options above
lack of understanding how our voting system works.
FD or that they chose a wrong option?
WBR, wRAR
"Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> writes:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:00:45PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
understand how to vote in a way that their ballot matches what
they want to express.
When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
there are plenty of votes like
1-------
It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
Which is?
Option 1 is the only acceptable option.
i think it's very presumptuous to assume anything about what someoneAnd if anyone is really losing sleep over that question, they can still
should have voted because all those combinations are reasonable.
Hey Adrian,
When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
there are plenty of votes like
1-------
It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
and that their ballot was wrongly filled due to a
lack of understanding how our voting system works.
That's really interesting.
Maybe we should cobble up a GUI tool to download & correctly fill out
& sign & email a ballot? Instead of numbering items (which requires
knowing how to count) people could drag them into an order, etc. This
would allow inactive or non-uploading DDs, ones who can't manage (or
can't be arsed) to fill out and gpg-sign a ballot, to express their
valuable opinions. It could look for the right key using the
devscripts mechanisms, like ~/.devscripts DEBSIGN_KEYID and
environment variables and such. Maybe check if any available private
keys appear on the Debian keyring. That way people who haven't needed
their key in years could still vote.
(Not sure if joking.)
--Barak.
Such a change would not remove any voting options since votesI disagree. Not on theoretical grounds, but if you assume that someone
like 1------- have equivalent espressions like 12222222.
Besides, I am still unconvinced and mildly offended by the assumption
that people who voted 1------- were too stupid to do it right.
...
Cheers
Timo
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
Besides, I am still unconvinced and mildly offended by the assumption
that people who voted 1------- were too stupid to do it right.
...
I am not saying people were stupid.
It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system that is very
different from what you are used to in real life, unless you are
a nerd in voting systems.
I am not saying people were stupid.Okay, that was hyperbolic. But you have to admit that you don't seem to
It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system that is veryIf you ask me as someone who has never used a ranked vote before, it is
different from what you are used to in real life, unless you are
a nerd in voting systems.
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> [2021-04-11 20:53]:
...
It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system that is veryIf you ask me as someone who has never used a ranked vote before, it is
different from what you are used to in real life, unless you are
a nerd in voting systems.
not that hard. The hard part is how the winner is determined from the
votes. I don't think many people will bother to independently verify the results.
"Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> writes:
I'd support revising the instructions to recommend that voters rank all options on the ballot.
I don't support mandating it.
If someone doesn't rank an option I'd rather accept a ballot than reject
it.
If someone wrote a patch to warn people if they sent in a not fully
ranked ballot, I'd also support that.
I just prefer to accept as many votes as we can rather than
disenfranchising people.
But I agree that fully ranking the ballot is likely to avoid surprises.
"Gunnar" == Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> writes:
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> [2021-04-11 20:53]:
I am not saying people were stupid.Okay, that was hyperbolic. But you have to admit that you don't seem to
put much confidence in people's ability (or willingness) to read the explanations that come with each ballot. I am by no means a voting
system nerd and found them quite understandable.
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:27:28PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> [2021-04-11 20:53]:
I am not saying people were stupid.Okay, that was hyperbolic. But you have to admit that you don't seem to
put much confidence in people's ability (or willingness) to read the
explanations that come with each ballot. I am by no means a voting
system nerd and found them quite understandable.
Here's how this works in the real world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote
As our ballots routinely get sorted (systemd was FBADHEG$) according to the vote's spectrum, it would be nice to get resistant to such votes. Thus,
what about sorting ballots randomly instead?
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
Here's how this works in the real world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote
As our ballots routinely get sorted (systemd was FBADHEG$) according to the vote's spectrum, it would be nice to get resistant to such votes. Thus, what about sorting ballots randomly instead?
Do you have any evidence at all that this occurs in Debian votes?
If you have read the article to which you refer, you'll have seen:
Donkey votes are most common where preference voting is combined with
compulsory voting, such as in Australia, particularly where all
candidates must be ranked on the ballot paper.
Our elections are not compulsory
and there is no insistence that one ranks all options
so I seriously doubt that people who are going to the
trouble of filling in all the numbers would bother if they had no
interest in the actual outcome, which is what you are trying to imply.
...
That's why we don't get pure donkey votes (12345678).
...
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:40:03AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
Here's how this works in the real world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote
As our ballots routinely get sorted (systemd was FBADHEG$) according to the
vote's spectrum, it would be nice to get resistant to such votes. Thus, >> > what about sorting ballots randomly instead?
Do you have any evidence at all that this occurs in Debian votes?
If you have read the article to which you refer, you'll have seen:
Donkey votes are most common where preference voting is combined with
compulsory voting, such as in Australia, particularly where all
candidates must be ranked on the ballot paper.
Our elections are not compulsory
That's why we don't get pure donkey votes (12345678).
and there is no insistence that one ranks all options
This has been suggested in this very thread.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 72:37:17 |
| Calls: | 6,657 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,332,305 |
| Posted today: | 1 |