Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Fri, 29 November 2013 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBDD1AD8D5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:40:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yztWvTL5olgG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468961A1F5F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 22ADCC94BE; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:40:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:40:50 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <20131129164050.GF87911@verdi>
References: <CAGgHUiQnkQKkc-ptMu6DtfUYJY6N9i7PUaeAqKxp96nB2MQBGA@mail.gmail.com> <52936207.5040704@ericsson.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A13302B@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <5295B273.1060305@ericsson.com> <C5B67CF6-44C2-44ED-A087-67D9737870AD@gmail.com> <5295F718.9010603@ericsson.com> <20131127175414.GA87911@verdi> <52971935.50408@ericsson.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AA548AF45D@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <52975223.50209@ericsson.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52975223.50209@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:40:55 -0000

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> The chairs did prepare to start the consensus call with an updated
> procedure. However, based on the last 24 hours feedback I think we will
> have to evaluate the latest feedback and determine what we see as the
> next step.

   This seems like a good time to expand on the "Condorcet" issue.

   Condorcet methods set out to solve a real issue. (There is a lot of
discussion available on the web about what other problems they cause
while doing so -- if you care about that, go look.)

   In most versions of "Instant Runoff" voting, one option can be
everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice -- and be
eliminated as a possible winner at the first round of transfers.

   That is a plausible problem here. :^(

   It's arguably possible that "no MTI" could be everybody's second
choice but nobody's first choice; and thus be eliminated.

   This is not necessarily a killer problem; but intelligent voters
would have to take that into account, and enough of them would have to
list no-MTI as their first choice with their actual first choice
listed second.

   (I am not asking for any particular change here: merely hoping to
help folks understand why several posters seem to be hung-up on using
Condorcet rules instead.)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>