I hope it is on-topic here to note that options 1, 3, and 4 formed a Condorcet preference cycle. So these *do* occur in the wild! And not
for low-ranked obscure options either.
The winning option 7 has an arrow with a 1 on it to option 4, which is
as razor-thin as you can get. If that arrow had been reversed (which
could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO
BALLOTS) the winning option would have been in an enormous preference
cycle of FIVE (5) options!
If the winning option in an election is part of a preference cycle,
then it (by definition) has the property that there exists some other
option that a majority of the voters preferred. In some elections that
is unavoidable: we need to pick one DPL, and if they're in a cycle so
be it; if there's a tie we can just toss a coin. But in others, like
the RMS GR, it seems like it would be a rather bad property and we'd
be better off treating it as FD and trying again later.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
If the winning option in an election is part of a preference cycle,
then it (by definition) has the property that there exists some other option that a majority of the voters preferred. In some elections that
is unavoidable: we need to pick one DPL, and if they're in a cycle so
be it; if there's a tie we can just toss a coin. But in others, like
the RMS GR, it seems like it would be a rather bad property and we'd
be better off treating it as FD and trying again later.
For info, we use cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping to resolve
these ties. The simple version is that we work out the cycle, and then
drop the lowest margin, in this case the 1, so "Debian will not issue a pubilc statement" would still win.
A full description is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
...
...
If that arrow had been reversed (which
could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO
BALLOTS)
...
I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, asMaybe a public statement in the name of all developers should require
Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that situation actually occurring, we get
in front of things, think about it, and figure out something proactive
to prevent it from ever actually happening: to prevent us from ever
having to make such an embarrassing press release.
* Barak A. Pearlmutter <bap@debian.org> [2021-04-18 20:30]:
I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that situation actually occurring, we getMaybe a public statement in the name of all developers should require
in front of things, think about it, and figure out something proactive
to prevent it from ever actually happening: to prevent us from ever
having to make such an embarrassing press release.
more than a simple 1:1 majority?
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
...
...
If that arrow had been reversed (which
could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO
BALLOTS)
...
On one ballot.
Which brings us back to my suggestion that we should make ranking all options mandatory
However, that seems likely to only work if there is a method forNo, because we have a ranking vote, where the majority is defined as the
drafting the statement first and then simply having an up or down vote.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
* Barak A. Pearlmutter <bap@debian.org> [2021-04-18 20:30]:
I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that situation actually occurring, we getMaybe a public statement in the name of all developers should require
in front of things, think about it, and figure out something proactive
to prevent it from ever actually happening: to prevent us from ever having to make such an embarrassing press release.
more than a simple 1:1 majority?
Something like a 3:1 majority would ensure that the measure had a very
broad consensus behind it. I would like to think that it would result
in more constructive discussions.
However, that seems likely to only work if there is a method for
drafting the statement first and then simply having an up or down vote.
The up or down vote is what Steve tried to accomplish by proposing the
GR to essentially adopt the text of the open leter. However, things
rapidly shifted as more options were added to the ballot. Whether a "special" sort of GR is needed (one that doesn't allow for adding more options) or an entirely different mechanism may need to be discussed.
It isn't clear how all of it would work in practice.
Regards,
-Roberto
* Roberto C. Snchez <roberto@debian.org> [2021-04-18 16:10]:
However, that seems likely to only work if there is a method forNo, because we have a ranking vote, where the majority is defined as the ratio of voters who prefer an option to the default versus those who
drafting the statement first and then simply having an up or down vote.
do not.
As you can see in the DPL election, both candidates achieved 4:1 majority, which would be impossible with a simple plurality vote.
3:1 majorityThat would put a public statement on par with a change in the
For info, we use cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping to resolve
these ties. The simple version is that we work out the cycle, and then
drop the lowest margin, in this case the 1, so "Debian will not issue a pubilc statement" would still win.
A full description is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any
reason for someone to rank them very differently.
It's very difficult to imagine someone who actually preferred option 7
being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and 8.
Complaining about the
voting system because you don't like the outcome or because you could announce the outcome in an awkward way is not helpful.
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any reason for someone to rank them very differently.
7 was a decision to not issue a statement ["There's no statement on
this issue that I want Debian to issue"]. 8 was a decision for further discussion ["There may be statement on this issue that I'd want Debian
to issue, but it's not here."]
When there isn't an explicit "no decision" option on the ballot,
further discussion encompass both, but that is not the case here.
It's very difficult to imagine someone who actually preferred option
7 being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and 8.
Here's an example thought process that works: "I want Debian to stop discussing this issue and anything more that Debian does on this issue
is equally bad."
Or another one: "I know that I prefer this option, but I'm not
comfortable with the rest of the options to decide what the project
should do, so I'll defer to the project's judgement."
Not to say that there aren't voters who are confused, but you should
contact them to figure out why they voted the way they did before
assuming that they didn't know what they were doing.
"Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter <bap@debian.org> writes:
I think we need voting reform around how the amendment process works and managing discussion time ...
...
Preferences can be of different strengths.
....
Which is to say that the gaps between preferences might be relatively
weak.
Sam, you make an excellent point about gaps between options, and that
a ranking does not show the strength of preferences. Like, I might
prefer ALPHA >>> BETA > GAMMA while you prefer ALPHA > BETA >>> GAMMA.
So if it's down to ALPHA vs BETA, my vote should shift things more
than yours, while if it's down to BETA vs GAMMA, your vote should
shift things more than mine. And if we do sorta-maybe try to encode
this with where FD is in the ranking, it does not actually have this
effect.
If we wanted to encode this information more fully, we would have to
go with some system where people give numeric strengths to each gap in
their preferences. And to avoid people just pegging them all to
maximum strength, we'd have to put a limit on the total strength in a
single ballot.
To go back to your restaurant situation, imagine there is one person
who's deathly allergic to seafood, so really doesn't want to go to the
dim sum place. Many others do like dim sum (perhaps even a majority),
but it's just a mild preference, they be happy with many of the
restaurant options and okay with all of them.
"Barak A. Pearlmutter" <barak@pearlmutter.net> writes:
Sam, you make an excellent point about gaps between options, and that
a ranking does not show the strength of preferences. Like, I might
prefer ALPHA >>> BETA > GAMMA while you prefer ALPHA > BETA >>> GAMMA.
So if it's down to ALPHA vs BETA, my vote should shift things more
than yours, while if it's down to BETA vs GAMMA, your vote should
shift things more than mine. And if we do sorta-maybe try to encode
this with where FD is in the ranking, it does not actually have this effect.
If we wanted to encode this information more fully, we would have to
go with some system where people give numeric strengths to each gap in their preferences. And to avoid people just pegging them all to
maximum strength, we'd have to put a limit on the total strength in a single ballot.
I think it's worth observing that this discussion started with "our voting system is too complicated and I think some people are making nonsense
votes because of it" and has now arrived at "we should make our voting
system considerably more complicated to improve its expressive power."
This all seems extremely speculative. Is there some GR whose result you think did not accurately represent the correct outcome given the
preferences of the people who voted? Precisely what problem are you
trying to solve here?
I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> wrote:
I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which
were motivated by the voting system—I do: GRs do not decide a matter
with prejudice, even though the weight to bring them again may be substantial. Therefore, doing nothing is very similar to doing nothing
but talking more.
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> wrote:
I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which
were motivated by the voting system—I do: GRs do not decide a matter
with prejudice, even though the weight to bring them again may be substantial. Therefore, doing nothing is very similar to doing nothing
but talking more.
As we all heal from this divisive issue, I furthermore find it
meaningful that proponents of a shortened discussion, who were at
times accused of pushing the resolution, were actually aligned with
voters: By a narrow margin, people did not want to discuss the matter
at all.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> wrote:
I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which
were motivated by the voting system—I do: GRs do not decide a matter
with prejudice, even though the weight to bring them again may be substantial. Therefore, doing nothing is very similar to doing nothing
but talking more.
As we all heal from this divisive issue, I furthermore find it
meaningful that proponents of a shortened discussion, who were at
times accused of pushing the resolution, were actually aligned with
voters: By a narrow margin, people did not want to discuss the matter
at all.
If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any
reason for someone to rank them very differently.
That's a very interesting idea. I wonder if we could elaborate upon it
to build a more expressive, and more robust, voting system.
Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit counterintuitive.
Have a look for yourself, it's a fun exercise.
A large number of voters stop ranking when they get to FD. I'm not
sure why, but in many cases this renders their ballot pretty much
powerless because options with a chance of winning are not ranked.
The details are very interesting, but any discussion of the actual
options leads back to discussing the topic of the GR proper, so I
really don't want to go there.
Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit counterintuitive.
Have a look for yourself, it's a fun exercise.
A large number of voters stop ranking when they get to FD. I'm not
sure why, but in many cases this renders their ballot pretty much
powerless because options with a chance of winning are not ranked.
"Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:
Quoting Barak A. Pearlmutter (2021-04-20 16:12:16)
Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit counterintuitive.
Have a look for yourself, it's a fun exercise.
A large number of voters stop ranking when they get to FD. I'm not
sure why, but in many cases this renders their ballot pretty much
powerless because options with a chance of winning are not ranked.
The details are very interesting, but any discussion of the actual
options leads back to discussing the topic of the GR proper, so I
really don't want to go there.
I appreciate this topic being brought up - it has affected my voting
style: Previously I thought that my voting powers stopped at FD.
I don't think it makes sense to change the system to mandate use of all voting power.
...
- Jonas
I did not want to spend time on figuring out if voting ------- in
our voting system is the same as not voting at all
* Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> [2021-04-18 16:10]:
3:1 majorityThat would put a public statement on par with a change in the
Constitution, which is a political statement in itself.
Bernd, sometimes the devil is in the details, and that's certainly the
case with voting systems.
Why should I rank options if there is only a limited number of
options I care about, and the others are just equally bad
choices imho?
I feel like we're sort of belaboring a point.
If someone voted
1-------
does it really seem plausible that they actually thought Option 2 was
exactly as bad as Option 5? So if Option 1 were removed from the
table, and they personally would pick which remaining option would be
chosen, they'd be just as happy with any of Options 2-8?
Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit counterintuitive.
Have a look for yourself, it's a fun exercise.
A large number of voters stop ranking when they get to FD. I'm not
sure why, but in many cases this renders their ballot pretty much
powerless because options with a chance of winning are not ranked.
The details are very interesting, but any discussion of the actual
options leads back to discussing the topic of the GR proper, so I
really don't want to go there.
I admit to having really mixed feelings about whether Debian should
*ever* make broad public statements about anything. So, no problem in
my mind with making it harder for the project to do so.
But then, I've also been around a *long* time, and am often wistful
about the days when it at least seemed that most of our discussions were about making technical improvements in Debian.
"Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter <barak@pearlmutter.net> writes:
So if it's down toBarak> ALPHA vs BETA, my vote should shift things more than yours,
That's a big jump, and I don't think I agree.
At least not when you phrase it that way.
Why should my preference matter less just because it's weaker? It's
still my preference and I'm attached to it very much:-)
"Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter <barak@pearlmutter.net> writes:
The math certainly helps. We can easily see that even if we think that
kind of strategic exploration is not an abuse, it clearly would be an
abuse if some privileged category of people got to choose the ballot
options.
"Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
it clearly would be an abuse if some privileged category of people got to choose the ballot options.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 291 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 155:45:12 |
| Calls: | 6,612 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,162 |
| Messages: | 5,311,823 |