Regarding the ballot currently before the Developers, Christian Perrier writes:
Moreover, the proposal is worded and was pushed in a way that all (but one) options that would allow us to release lenny will need a 3:1 majority, which is obviously very hard to achieve (and as, there are several such proposals, the vote will be spread out among all of them).
So, those folks who make the release of lenny their priority are now facing an interesting tactical choice: how the ..... should we vote for this to happen?
I personnally did choose to vote this way: 5462371.
I agree with Christian's goals, but in my opinion, the ballot he has cast actually makes less likely that the winning option will allow us to release lenny.
In Debian, we run a two-round election using a single ballot. In the
first round, any options that need a 3:1 majority must defeat the
default option by a 3:1 majority. Options which fail this test are
eliminated and dropped from further consideration. In the second
round, a winner is chosen from the remaining options using a
Condorcet method as usual. The upshot of this is that
the votes for the 3:1 majority cannot be spread out
, unless
people habitually place only one of the 3:1 options over Further
Discussion. Furthermore, voting everything below Further Discussion
benefits the options that don't require a 3:1 majority over the ones
that do.
For a real
example, let's say that we have a ballot like this:
[ ] Choice 1: Omelette [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Quiche [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Toast
[ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
Suppose that we don't like the ballot at all, but we want an egg-based breakfast. What happens if we vote like this?
[2] Choice 1: Omelette [3:1]
[3] Choice 2: Quiche [3:1]
[4] Choice 3: Toast
[1] Choice 4: Further Discussion
This ballot can be read as: I don't think that omelettes or quiche
should pass the 3:1 majority requirement. But if they do, I prefer
them to toast.
Unless 75% of the remaining voters vote omelette and
quiche above toast, those two options will be thrown away, and the
vote will be determined by whether half the voters placed toast over
further discussion. If you want to make sure that toast doesn't win,
you have to vote (insincerely) like this:
[1] Choice 1: Omelette [3:1]
[1] Choice 2: Quiche [3:1]
[3] Choice 3: Toast
[2] Choice 4: Further Discussion
Sadly, there is no way to vote against the vote
without
effectively also voting for toast!
I wonder if it was a mistake to combine the supermajority vote and the Condorcet vote on a single ballot. Maybe it would be better to write both ballots out explicitly:
Some options on this ballot must be approved by a 3:1
supermajority of the electorate. Please enter 'Y' next to the
options that you approve of and 'N' next to those you disapprove
of. Ballot options on which 75% of voters vote 'Y' will proceed
to the next round (below).
[ ] Choice 1: Omelette [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Quiche [3:1]
Rank the ballot options below:
[ ] Choice 1: Omelette [3:1]
[ ] Choice 2: Quiche [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Toast
[ ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
That would allow people who want to vote against the vote
without privileging any of the options over the others to do so: vote
Y
to all 3:1 options, then vote 2221
on the rest.
On the other hand, I suspect people would be confused in different
ways by a voting system that was this complicated, voting Y
in
places where they should write a number and writing numbers where they
should write Y
or N
. I guess all this mess is why we
still use First Past the Post for votes in the real
world...