Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #89
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 24 2000           Volume 01 : Number 089

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:11:26 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Based on the discussion of version 0.4, here's what I propose as final text.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
Version 0.5

These are the rules for voting in the General assembly.

- - A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.
A ballot consists of one or more questions, each of which has two or more 
mutually exclusive answers.
The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the secretariat.
- - The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
- - Each voter can cast one vote for one alternative per question.
- - The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes wins.
- - In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA, 
the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least 
2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of 
20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
- - If no alternative gets the required number of votes, the Chair may reissue
the ballot with a smaller set of alternatives (a runoff), or declare that
there is no consensus in the GA on the question.
- -  The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is first 
sent out.

NOTE: This set of rules does not cover ballots with multiple winners,
such as election of a set of representatives. Rules for these situations
may be introduced in a later amendment.

The voting roster and a method to register for voting are available in 
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
- --------------------

I'd like to have this set of rules voted on now.
If someone wants to introduce instant runoff, so that we can remove the 50% 
requirement, I hope we can discuss that as a separate issue - AFTER getting 
a rule that works for the simplest cases.

OK?

               Harald
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:21:56 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

It sounds like all we need is the chair to approve a ballot, assuming that
we use these rules on this ballot.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 8:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Based on the discussion of version 0.4, here's what I propose as final text.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
Version 0.5

These are the rules for voting in the General assembly.

- - A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.
A ballot consists of one or more questions, each of which has two or more 
mutually exclusive answers.
The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the secretariat.
- - The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
- - Each voter can cast one vote for one alternative per question.
- - The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes wins.
- - In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA, 
the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least 
2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of 
20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
- - If no alternative gets the required number of votes, the Chair may reissue
the ballot with a smaller set of alternatives (a runoff), or declare that
there is no consensus in the GA on the question.
- -  The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is first 
sent out.

NOTE: This set of rules does not cover ballots with multiple winners,
such as election of a set of representatives. Rules for these situations
may be introduced in a later amendment.

The voting roster and a method to register for voting are available in 
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
- --------------------

I'd like to have this set of rules voted on now.
If someone wants to introduce instant runoff, so that we can remove the 50% 
requirement, I hope we can discuss that as a separate issue - AFTER getting 
a rule that works for the simplest cases.

OK?

               Harald
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:48:50 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 10:43:02AM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 09:55 23.06.2000 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> 
> >Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I move that we vote on Harald's proposal.
> > >
> >I second it.
> hey - before we go to the vote, could I propose an amended version?
> I think we want 2/3 approval on this vote (rule change), and it would be a
> shame if those who think the rules for complex elections are wrong would 
> vote against it on that basis, leaving us with nothing.
> 
> I'll ship an amended version that says:
> 
> - this is for single-outcome votes only, other kinds of votes will be
>    addressed later
> - if no alternative gets enough votes to be accepted, the vote is termed
>    inconclusive, and the chair may issue a new ballot.
> - the threshold is 1/2 for ordinary votes, 2/3 for rule changes
> 
> OK?

Yes.  OK by me.

Kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:09:01 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------E9F88028524E09218B365F4F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I'd like to have this set of rules voted on now.
> If someone wants to introduce instant runoff, so that we can remove the 50%
> requirement, I hope we can discuss that as a separate issue - AFTER getting
> a rule that works for the simplest cases.
>
> OK?

My initial response was "sure."

Here are my "second thoughts:"

1.  Our mothers taught us to do our best in everything we touch.  That must be
our default.
We are now building an operating system.   We all know that flaws in the code at
this level will be reflected in the applications.  We ought to have compelling
reason to justify making the operating system our first deviation from the
default of "best we can do."

2.  It will likely take less time and emotional energy to discuss the real
issue--what is the best code--than debating the worth of having such
discussion.  In other words, lets discuss the issue and not waste time arguing
whether we are engaged in governance.

3.  To only consider one option against the alternative is unfair to the
proposition not on the ballot.  Under your proposal, IRV will be considered (if
at all) in a different context with a strong argument against its necessity.

4.  And, piece-mealing the process as proposed violates the "rule against
perpetuities" so recently urged.  We save nothing by drawing out the process,
only suffer cost.

Therefore, I  move to amend Harald's motion to provide for three ballot choices:

a.  Harald's motion;

b.  Harald's motion, but with IRV instead of the 50% requirement, changing:

     "The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes wins."

to:

     "Multi-choice votes shall be conducted using Instant Run-off Voting
     (IRV);"

and

c.  "none of the above."

Respectfully submitted:

- --------------E9F88028524E09218B365F4F
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.814.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
end:vcard

- --------------E9F88028524E09218B365F4F--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:52:29 -0700
From: "Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

A few comments, if you please;
1) small groups beget simple rules. Polling/consensus is
appropriate.
2) medium-sized groups need more complex rules. Votng is
introduced.
3) large groups absolutely need formal rules, with fully
transparent accountability.

The problem is that the group size changes. Hopefully, the group
grows.

Another problem is credibility. Accusations of electorial fraud
is proportional to the complexity of the voting system. Even
simple systems need to be defensible. Weighted voting rules are
allways susceptible to challenge. KISS is a basic defense aid
here. With due respect to messr. Froomkin, his proposal is too
complex, with inadequate audit-trail.

After four years, in this activity, watching various startup
organizations, I think that the following requirements can be
derived, for a voting/polling system.

1) The actual voting system needs to be simple, with both email
and web-based interfaces.
2) The number of issues, per voting event, needs to be few and
controlled.
3) Voting events need to be strictly periodic, no ad hoc voting
events. (min. 90-day periods)
4) All voters need to be absolutely authenticated, within the
system.
5) Churn needs to be minimized.
6) Each registered voter gets exactly one vote.

Failure to meet all of the above requirements has been shown to
lead to failure/disruption. No organization,in this context, to
date, has ever met all of these requirements. All such nacent
organizations have failed and/or continue to fail (including
failure to grow).

A major issue, in some organizations, has been item 2. The has
always been an abundance of votable issues. The prioritization
mechanism that determines which of these issues get on the ballot
has usually been over-looked, or has been a target for those
attempting to gain control over the organization (capture). This
is usually the weakest point of defense. My answer to this is
polling. Post the candidate issues, FCFS, and let participants
indicate a priority preference. The top X number of issues make
it on the next ballot round. Once disposed of by formal vote, it
is moved to the bottom of the issues list and marked as
"disposed". No issues should magically disappear from the issues
list. Periodically, all disposed issues should be moved to an
archive. All data should be kept in perpetuity.

What I am proposing here is a simple auditable voting mechanism
that is fed by a polling mechanism which is also auditable. It
also satisfies desires for both static and dynamic opinion
gathering and it is do-able with current technology. No limits
and no weighting, simple majority for most issues. Rule changes
and financial issues require 2/3 majority of those voting.

This is only my opinion, FWIW.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Harald
> Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 5:11 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Voting rules, take 4
>
>
> Based on the discussion of version 0.4, here's what I propose
> as final text.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
- -------
> VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
> Version 0.5
>
> These are the rules for voting in the General assembly.
>
> - A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.
> A ballot consists of one or more questions, each of which has
> two or more
> mutually exclusive answers.
> The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the
secretariat.
> - The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one
week.
> - Each voter can cast one vote for one alternative per
question.
> - The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes
wins.
> - In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change
> for the GA,
> the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must
> be at least
> 2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being
> the lower of
> 20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
> - If no alternative gets the required number of votes, the
> Chair may reissue
> the ballot with a smaller set of alternatives (a runoff), or
> declare that
> there is no consensus in the GA on the question.
> -  The voters are those who are registered as voters when a
> vote is first
> sent out.
>
> NOTE: This set of rules does not cover ballots with multiple
winners,
> such as election of a set of representatives. Rules for these
> situations
> may be introduced in a later amendment.
>
> The voting roster and a method to register for voting are
> available in
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
> --------------------
>
> I'd like to have this set of rules voted on now.
> If someone wants to introduce instant runoff, so that we can
> remove the 50%
> requirement, I hope we can discuss that as a separate issue -
> AFTER getting
> a rule that works for the simplest cases.
>
> OK?
>
>                Harald
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:06:53 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IRV explained

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------EC9FBACC3E1EF53F0C7FC7AC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

For those not familiar with this mechanism:

IRV is  a plug-in to a more general election scheme.  It avoids
plurality/minority rule by finding the greatest consensus on ballot
items or races in which there are more than 2 choices.  It is
explained on by the Center for Voting and Democracy
<http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html> as follows:

                               IRV allows voters to rank candidates
as their first choice,
                               second choice, third, fourth and so
on. If a candidate does
                               not receive a clear majority of votes
on the first count, a
                               series of runoff counts are
conducted, using each voter’s top
                               choices indicated on the ballot. The
candidate who received
                               the fewest first place ballots is
eliminated. The ballots are
                               then retabulated, with each counting
as a vote for the
                               top-ranked candidate listed on the
ballot that is still in
                               contention. Voters who chose the
now-eliminated candidate
                               have their vote transferred to their
second choice candidate
                               -- just as if they were voting in a
traditional two-round
                               runoff election. This process
continues until a candidate
                               achieves more than fifty percent of
the vote.

- --------------EC9FBACC3E1EF53F0C7FC7AC
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.814.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
end:vcard

- --------------EC9FBACC3E1EF53F0C7FC7AC--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:13:46 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IRV explained/reformatted

- -------- Original Message --------
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: IRV explained
To: [email-masked]

For those not familiar with this mechanism:

IRV is  a plug-in to a more general election scheme.  It avoids
plurality/minority rule by finding the greatest consensus on ballot
items or races in which there are more than 2 choices.  It is
explained on by the Center for Voting and Democracy
<http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html> as follows:

IRV allows voters to rank candidates
as their first choice,
second choice, third, fourth and so
on. If a candidate does
not receive a clear majority of votes
on the first count, a
series of runoff counts are
conducted, using each voter’s top
choices indicated on the ballot. The
candidate who received
the fewest first place ballots is
eliminated. The ballots are
then retabulated, with each counting
as a vote for the
top-ranked candidate listed on the
ballot that is still in
contention. Voters who chose the
now-eliminated candidate
have their vote transferred to their
second choice candidate
- -- just as if they were voting in a
traditional two-round
runoff election. This process
continues until a candidate
achieves more than fifty percent of
the vote.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:56:44 -0500
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

"Roeland Meyer (E-mail)" wrote:

> A few comments, if you please;
> 1) small groups beget simple rules. Polling/consensus is
> appropriate.
> 2) medium-sized groups need more complex rules. Votng is
> introduced.
> 3) large groups absolutely need formal rules, with fully
> transparent accountability.

I don't know how these metrics help us resolve the issue before us.
"Complexity" is a moving target and may be in the eyes of the
beholder.  And, we lack definition for the various categories of
"size."  Indeed, there may be an inverse relationship between "size"
and the ability of a group to deal with complexities.

Almost all groups with more than 5 members seem to be conducted
according to rules.  Formal actions generally require defined
majorities and quorums.   Most rules do not depend on the size of the
group for their logic nor function.  Diversity of interests is
probably the most significant determinant of the type of procedure
required/desired by the participants.   Furthermore, the cost/benefit
analysis applied when considering a given proposal will take into
account the effects of complexity.

I suggest we discuss specific proposals on their merits rather than
invoking generalizations which must, themselves, be explained,
validated and properly applied.

> The problem is that the group size changes. Hopefully, the group
> grows.

Absolutely.

> Another problem is credibility.

Agreed.

> Accusations of electorial fraud
> is proportional to the complexity of the voting system.

I don't know the basis of this assertion.  I suspect other factors
predominate, such as the nature/significance of the things decided,
the diversity of interests affected, the mechanisms employed for
assuring fair results and the participants' perceptions regarding the
fairness of the procedure and administration involved.

> Even simple systems need to be defensible.

Agreed.

> Weighted voting rules are
> allways susceptible to challenge.

We already know that nothing is perfect.  So, everything is subject
to challenge, including simple but wrong answers.  We are seeking a
system which is susceptible to least challenge.  Again, that requires
a case-by-case analysis of proposals on their own merits.

> ...With due respect to messr. Froomkin, his proposal is too
> complex, with inadequate audit-trail.

Is this a criticism of proportionate representation a la STV (which
does not require political parties)?  If so, it is not responsive to
Harald's motion which deals with a different case--the multiple
choice/single winner vote.  And,  I question that conclusion.  I
think we all understand ranking our preferences.  The rest is done by
the computer.  The result is immediate.  I have not heard anyone on
this list argue that those results are less fair.

The same is true regarding IRV (which does address Harald's specific
case).

The "audit trail" issue, on the other hand,  is legitimate,
significant, and exists in all votes upon secret ballot.  We may need
some mechanism for appointing poll watchers.

I make no comment on the rest of Roeland's points.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:55:19 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IRV explained/reformatted

I support postponement of any consideration of voting methods for
multiple choice elections so that the issues can be more closely
examined by us individually and as a group.

In the interim, we need some means of getting at least basic voting
methods in place for two choice voting (yea/nea system) and anything
that leads to a delay in that should be set aside for the moment.

So I support Harald's current proposal as is, and add my voice to
those calling for a vote on it.

Friday, June 23, 2000, 11:13:46 AM, you wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
> Subject: IRV explained
> To: [email-masked]

> For those not familiar with this mechanism:

> IRV is  a plug-in to a more general election scheme.  It avoids
> plurality/minority rule by finding the greatest consensus on ballot
> items or races in which there are more than 2 choices.  It is
> explained on by the Center for Voting and Democracy
> <http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html> as follows:

> IRV allows voters to rank candidates
> as their first choice,
> second choice, third, fourth and so
> on. If a candidate does
> not receive a clear majority of votes
> on the first count, a
> series of runoff counts are
> conducted, using each voter’s top
> choices indicated on the ballot. The
> candidate who received
> the fewest first place ballots is
> eliminated. The ballots are
> then retabulated, with each counting
> as a vote for the
> top-ranked candidate listed on the
> ballot that is still in
> contention. Voters who chose the
> now-eliminated candidate
> have their vote transferred to their
> second choice candidate
> -- just as if they were voting in a
> traditional two-round
> runoff election. This process
> continues until a candidate
> achieves more than fifty percent of
> the vote.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:45:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: *** Ballot approved *** Was: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Chuck Gomes wrote:

>It sounds like all we need is the chair to approve a ballot, assuming 
that
>we use these rules on this ballot.
>

Indeed.
I hope that use the rules to vote on the rules will not raise some sort 
of Russell's paradox ;>)

Well, now we've got a Chair that has approved the vote, so let's roll up
 our sleeves and go.

Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:56:41 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

At 10:52 23.06.2000 -0700, Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\) wrote:
>1) The actual voting system needs to be simple, with both email
>and web-based interfaces.

Simplicity I agree with.

>2) The number of issues, per voting event, needs to be few and
>controlled.

Agreed. That's why I prefer a human in the loop here.
The risk of capture is real, however; any human (or group of humans)
who gets veto powers on ballots needs a mechanism for his removal.

>3) Voting events need to be strictly periodic, no ad hoc voting
>events. (min. 90-day periods)

Don't agree. This depends on the nature of the issue. 90 days is
a LONG time for some issues (such as voting on the GA's opinion on
the Sunrise+20 proposal, for instance).
For elections, I would tend to sympathize.

>4) All voters need to be absolutely authenticated, within the
>system.

"Absolutely" is a word I dislike. Fair and reasonably secure
mechanisms for authentication, I agree fully with.

>5) Churn needs to be minimized.

As in "don't vote on an issue we just finished voting on"? Yes.

>6) Each registered voter gets exactly one vote.

Agreed.

                  Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:08:41 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

At 12:09 23.06.2000 -0500, Weisberg wrote:

>Therefore, I  move to amend Harald's motion to provide for three ballot 
>choices:
>
>a.  Harald's motion;
>
>b.  Harald's motion, but with IRV instead of the 50% requirement, changing:
>
>      "The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes wins."
>
>to:
>
>      "Multi-choice votes shall be conducted using Instant Run-off Voting
>      (IRV);"
>
>and
>
>c.  "none of the above."

Eric,
the implications of your note disturb me.
The implications seem to me to be that:

- - you have volunteered to write a complete description of Instant Run-Off 
Voting as applied to GA votes. Especially how to deal with ties in the 
number of votes for the alternatives that might be considered for "losers", 
which is the most obvious problem I found when considering IRV.

- - you have proposed delaying the vote on the ruleset proposed until such a 
description is written and agreed to.

To me, this delay, and the added complexity in the ruleset, is an example 
of the best being the enemy of the good.

                     Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #89
***********************