Post by Sébastien Villemot Post by Neil McGovern Post by Josselin Mouette
Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Here is my understanding of the issue, on a simplified example.
DT systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
DL systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
UT upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
UL upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
And let's suppose that the CTTE has 4 members: P1 (the chairman), P2, P3
P1: DT > UT > DL > UL
P2: DL > UL > DT > UT
P3: UT > UL > DL > DT
P4: UT > UL > DL > DT
P1 and P2 both prefer systemd over upstart, while P3 and P4 prefer
upstart over systemd. But P1 and P2 disagree on the coupling question (T
versus L), while P3 and P4 agree with each other.
The Condorcet winner of this vote is UT (and note that the casting vote
of P1 is not needed here, since UT is alone in the Schwartz set).
This result is not necessarily what one would have expected beforehand.
In particular, if the ballot had not included the options about
coupling, then systemd would have won because of the casting vote of the
Fundamentally, the reason of the victory of upstart in this hypothetical
vote is that systemd proponents prefer to lose on the coupling question
rather than on the init system question, while the upstart proponents
have the opposite preference over the relative importance of these two
Of course, in the alternative scenario with two consecutive ballots (one
on the init, followed by one on the coupling), it would not have been
possible to express this preference over the relative importance of the
two questions, so one could argue that this is a feature of the single
ballot with all options.
I would argue your example shows the voters not understanding how the
voting system works...
Quoting the Debian Constitution:
Options which the voters rank above the default option are options
they find acceptable. Options ranked below the default options are
options they find unacceptable.
If in your example P1 and P2 would both rank FD (the default option
"further discussion") second, then DL wins.
And if additionally P3 and P4 would rank FD second or third, then FD wins.
The casting vote of the chairman sounds more powerful than it is in
actually, since in any situation between two options where no option has
a majority of at least the quorum, each side can prevent the other side
So if for example 4 members of the TC would say "only systemd is an
acceptable choice", and the other 4 members of the TC would say "only
upstart is an acceptable choice", then any result other than "further
discussion" would be caused by a voting error.
And this is not a problem of the Condorcet voting system, this is due to
the explicit statement "There is a quorum of two." in the Constitution.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org