4 ms·

Debian uses a Condorcet method[1] for voting, which may be a bit more complicated than traditional simple majority voting, but makes sure that the winner would

Debian uses a Condorcet method[1] for voting, which may be a bit more complicated than traditional simple majority voting, but makes sure that the winner would also win in every pair-wise election, as opposed to a less desirable candidate winning thanks to a greater number of more desirable candidates splitting the votes between themselves. [1]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method>

tialaramex 4y ago
I would argue that voting is neither necessary nor appropriate for this problem, but if you're going to have voting with people who are pretty technical then the usual objection to sophisticated voting systems for the general electorate doesn't apply. [Confidence in a voting system is vital to the operation of democracy, once upon a time this needed a lot of explaining but I'd guess 2020 was recent enough that most readers know why it's a problem if loads of voters are somehow persuaded the results are bogus. Complicated systems make it harder to build confidence because some voters don't understand how it works and thus why should they have any confidence that it behaves correctly?] Debian specifically uses the Schulze method (a particular Condorcet method which avoids need for a "tie-break" mechanism by always picking a winner). And yes, this involves a lot more maths than First-past-the-post which may be familiar to a lot of readers. Note that "proportional" methods don't make any sense in this type of vote because there is nothing to share out. One of the options wins, all the others lose. Whether proportional systems are appropriate for electing members to a legislature for example, is a separate question.
- yakubin 4y ago
  > I would argue that voting is neither necessary nor appropriate for this problem It's a change to the Debian Social Contract. Making it without voting would be like changing a country's constitution without voting. How else would you make such a change?
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    Unlike a country, Debian membership isn't foisted upon you. Debians members explicitly joined and if they don't like this change they can - regardless of how they voted - leave if they don't like it. But beyond that, asking the general population to vote on constitutional amendments is cowardly. In the democratic countries you're presumably thinking of we elect politicians to make these decisions in a larger context, when they try to punt to the general population that's like if your taxi driver decides eh, I'll take your money but you'll need to actually do the driving. If they aren't going to do the job, what are we paying them for?
    - yakubin 4y ago
      Switzerland is generally looked upon as the closest a country can get to democratic these days and, from what I understand, more contentious topics there are resolved by referendums. That's something I'd agree with. Generally politicians should be there to deal with the boring details, not to make decisions about the foundational law like constitution, because the general population doesn't know any better. They're there to make governing scalable to the size of modern countries, not to take decisions away from us (at least in an idealistic view of the world). In some countries, when inevitably a party, which wouldn't win pair-wise elections with most of other parties, wins the elections nonetheless and forms a government, they proceed to make fundamental changes to the governance structures of the country, which the population does not support. That's not an edge-case of representational democracy, it's its MO. If I were a Debian Developer, I would like a vote in such fundamental topics, instead of needing to rely on someone somewhere representing me. This change is different than a change of say optimisation flags used when compiling Firefox. Bear in mind that there are distributions which aren't as democratic as Debian. So to use your argument: if a member doesn't like this structure, they may leave for another distro.

tialaramex 4y ago

I would argue that voting is neither necessary nor appropriate for this problem, but if you're going to have voting with people who are pretty technical then the usual objection to sophisticated voting systems for the general electorate doesn't apply. [Confidence in a voting system is vital to the operation of democracy, once upon a time this needed a lot of explaining but I'd guess 2020 was recent enough that most readers know why it's a problem if loads of voters are somehow persuaded the results are bogus. Complicated systems make it harder to build confidence because some voters don't understand how it works and thus why should they have any confidence that it behaves correctly?] Debian specifically uses the Schulze method (a particular Condorcet method which avoids need for a "tie-break" mechanism by always picking a winner). And yes, this involves a lot more maths than First-past-the-post which may be familiar to a lot of readers. Note that "proportional" methods don't make any sense in this type of vote because there is nothing to share out. One of the options wins, all the others lose. Whether proportional systems are appropriate for electing members to a legislature for example, is a separate question.

yakubin 4y ago
> I would argue that voting is neither necessary nor appropriate for this problem It's a change to the Debian Social Contract. Making it without voting would be like changing a country's constitution without voting. How else would you make such a change?
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Unlike a country, Debian membership isn't foisted upon you. Debians members explicitly joined and if they don't like this change they can - regardless of how they voted - leave if they don't like it. But beyond that, asking the general population to vote on constitutional amendments is cowardly. In the democratic countries you're presumably thinking of we elect politicians to make these decisions in a larger context, when they try to punt to the general population that's like if your taxi driver decides eh, I'll take your money but you'll need to actually do the driving. If they aren't going to do the job, what are we paying them for?
  - yakubin 4y ago
    Switzerland is generally looked upon as the closest a country can get to democratic these days and, from what I understand, more contentious topics there are resolved by referendums. That's something I'd agree with. Generally politicians should be there to deal with the boring details, not to make decisions about the foundational law like constitution, because the general population doesn't know any better. They're there to make governing scalable to the size of modern countries, not to take decisions away from us (at least in an idealistic view of the world). In some countries, when inevitably a party, which wouldn't win pair-wise elections with most of other parties, wins the elections nonetheless and forms a government, they proceed to make fundamental changes to the governance structures of the country, which the population does not support. That's not an edge-case of representational democracy, it's its MO. If I were a Debian Developer, I would like a vote in such fundamental topics, instead of needing to rely on someone somewhere representing me. This change is different than a change of say optimisation flags used when compiling Firefox. Bear in mind that there are distributions which aren't as democratic as Debian. So to use your argument: if a member doesn't like this structure, they may leave for another distro.