Hi,

I think after this election is done it will be interesting to actually
develop a realistic model that takes into account the numbers and
distribution of members across all 3 voting types, a realistic model
that we can then test various scenarios, including the current no other
that's acceptable - NOTA - bar setting indicator and other models that
people want to propose. We can then use the model to understand and
explore the hypothetical edge cases that people are putting forward in a
fact based manner.

At this point, going beyond the simple application of the current model
and making sure voters understand their options and how the votes will
be treated is just confusing.

thanks

avri


On 25-Aug-16 08:43, Enrique Chaparro wrote:
> The 'big issue' with the system here is that 'supercandidate'
> NotA behaves strangely. We can live with that for this election,
> but I strongly advise against keeping it for the future.
>
> "For/against/neutral" systems are used in real life is some
> cases,[1] but always when there is just one subject to be
> decided upon. This is not the case: NotA has an interference
> effect so weird that when the voter expresses lack of trust
> in one candidate, that negative vote is being transferrec to
> all other subjects to be voted. I guess that the original attempt
> was to express something like
> 1. X | NotX
> 2. Y | NotY
> 3. Z | NotZ
> but the result of the tally will be:
> 1. X | NotX+NotY+NotZ
> 2. Y | NotX+NotY+NotZ
> 3. Z | NotX+NotY+NotZ
> If we take it with a little humour, we could congratulate ourselves
> for having designed a non-monotonic election system![2]
>
> Regards,
>
> Enrique
>
> [1] E.g., many decisions in the Wikipedia comunity are taken
> by this procedure.
>
> [2] A system where increasing (resp. decreasing) the number of
> votes for a candidate *does*not* increase the chances for that
> candidate to become a winner.
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus