4 ms·

They use ranked choice voting so this shouldn't matter, as far as I understand RCV eliminates the lowest option one-by-one, passing the votes to the next option

by dtech 5y ago

They use ranked choice voting so this shouldn't matter, as far as I understand RCV eliminates the lowest option one-by-one, passing the votes to the next option on each ballot as if the eliminated option never existed. The discussion seems to be about ballots with 3 > 2 > 4, and when 3 was eliminated the votes went to 2, allowing it to pass. That's a bit strange because you'd expect a ballot to always have 3 next to 4 since they are so similar.

Sesse__ 5y ago
Debian's vote system does not use instant runoff voting (which is eliminating the lowest options one by one). Instead, it uses Condorcet voting, which picks the options defeating all the others in pairwise competition. (If no such option exists, it gets more complicated. Also, the NOTA option is special and is used to check majority or supermajority requirements before the actual Condorcet process starts.)
- kevinpet 5y ago
  Thank you. This is the first comment that clearly explained the issue.
zozbot234 5y ago
3 > 2 > 4 is very clear in that it means "I would most prefer to reaffirm public voting, but I do support secret voting so long as verification is allowed. I oppose secret voting without verification.". It's a meaningful vote. Why are people disagreeing about this?
- dtech 5y ago
  Because public voting is the status quo, so 3 & 4 are identical in what they would (not) change in the procedures. 3 is just an additional statement of support. If you support public voting (3) you also support 4 over 1/2.
  - gvx 5y ago
    Not necessarily. As I understand it, 4 (NOTA) is special, because in a vote to change the constitution of Debian, you need 3 times more votes for a change than NOTA votes. Thus 3 > 2 > 4 would mean "I prefer 3, but if the majority supports 2 I will side with them instead of against them". In this case, I can imagine people thinking "I personally think public voting is fine, but if a lot of people think we should have secret votes, I have no problem with changing the constitution to allow those."
  - malthuswaswrong 5y ago
    Public voting is not status quo outside of Debian. In the real world the only places that have public voting are places that are controlled by dictators.
    - notriddle 5y ago
      As well as many, many organizations that aren’t governments.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      It’s very common for boards and other organizational entities to use public voting. I’d argue that it’s a feature of legislative processes. I do think ranked choice voting is dumb and adds low value and high complexity. This thread with hundreds of comments affirms that notion.
    - toast0 5y ago
      Most (all?) US legislatures don't have private voting and are not controlled by dictators; not sure about other countries. Voice voting does happen in some contexts and doesn't leave a record of who voted how, but most contested votes are recorded. To me, Debian Developer feels more like a position of responsibility and representation than a member of the public. But I'm not one, and I don't know what the expectations are.

by dtech 5y ago

Sesse__ 5y ago

Debian's vote system does not use instant runoff voting (which is eliminating the lowest options one by one). Instead, it uses Condorcet voting, which picks the options defeating all the others in pairwise competition. (If no such option exists, it gets more complicated. Also, the NOTA option is special and is used to check majority or supermajority requirements before the actual Condorcet process starts.)

kevinpet 5y ago
Thank you. This is the first comment that clearly explained the issue.

zozbot234 5y ago

3 > 2 > 4 is very clear in that it means "I would most prefer to reaffirm public voting, but I do support secret voting so long as verification is allowed. I oppose secret voting without verification.". It's a meaningful vote. Why are people disagreeing about this?

dtech 5y ago
Because public voting is the status quo, so 3 & 4 are identical in what they would (not) change in the procedures. 3 is just an additional statement of support. If you support public voting (3) you also support 4 over 1/2.
- gvx 5y ago
  Not necessarily. As I understand it, 4 (NOTA) is special, because in a vote to change the constitution of Debian, you need 3 times more votes for a change than NOTA votes. Thus 3 > 2 > 4 would mean "I prefer 3, but if the majority supports 2 I will side with them instead of against them". In this case, I can imagine people thinking "I personally think public voting is fine, but if a lot of people think we should have secret votes, I have no problem with changing the constitution to allow those."
- malthuswaswrong 5y ago
  Public voting is not status quo outside of Debian. In the real world the only places that have public voting are places that are controlled by dictators.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    As well as many, many organizations that aren’t governments.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    It’s very common for boards and other organizational entities to use public voting. I’d argue that it’s a feature of legislative processes. I do think ranked choice voting is dumb and adds low value and high complexity. This thread with hundreds of comments affirms that notion.
  - toast0 5y ago
    Most (all?) US legislatures don't have private voting and are not controlled by dictators; not sure about other countries. Voice voting does happen in some contexts and doesn't leave a record of who voted how, but most contested votes are recorded. To me, Debian Developer feels more like a position of responsibility and representation than a member of the public. But I'm not one, and I don't know what the expectations are.