Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process

John Leslie <> Fri, 29 November 2013 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBDD1AD8D5 for <>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:40:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yztWvTL5olgG for <>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468961A1F5F for <>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (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 <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Message-ID: <20131129164050.GF87911@verdi>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20131127175414.GA87911@verdi> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:40:55 -0000

Magnus Westerlund <> 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 <>