ternary operator vote

[Laura Creighton]

> >> So, if the alternatives are A, B, C, D, or no change, you could
> >> vote for no change (alone) if you want to express disapproval of
> >> any change.
> 
> Laura> This is the reason why people will never accept this method of
> Laura> voting.  Having decided that I want A, but would rather eat worms
> Laura> than accept B, I have no way to protect myself.
> 
> Protect yourself from what?
> 
> Laura> If I vote my A, and B wins, then it's worm salad for me.
> 
> If B gets the most votes even though you didn't vote for it,
> B wins.  What's wrong with that?

That I would rather have no change than B.  Strongly.

> 
> Laura> If, on the other hand, I so badly want to avoid B that I will
> Laura> vote no-change even though I support A, then I haven't helped
> Laura> A's cause.  When C wins over A by 2 votes, I will be insensed.
> 
> If C wins over A by two votes, C would have won whatever you did.

Perhaps.  But perhaps other people voted no rather than A.

> 
> Laura> And, should one proposal pass, those who genuinely hate any
> Laura> change whatsoever will be even angrier.  They will claim, with
> Laura> certain justification, that they could have got a majority of
> Laura> Pythonistas to vote against _any_ proposal.  However, they
> Laura> could not get a majority to vote against _every_ proposal.
> Laura> That is a much harder job.  The more proposals the pro camp
> Laura> comes up with, the more the vote is stacked so that one of the
> Laura> pro outcomes is selected ... unless some of the proposals are
> Laura> so horrible that you can mount a scare campaign and say 'vote
> Laura> no change or risk seeing this abomination every day'.
> 
> The alternative is to stack the deck against any change unless there
> is a single change on which nearly everyone can agree.

Correct.  Or a few proposed forms, though a single one would be
better.  When somebody proposed, 'first we vote on whether we get a
ternary, and then, if that passes we vote on what we get', people
yelled foul.  They knew absolutely that there were some ways of
expressing this that they would be unwilling to accept at any price.
These people are still out there, and they would still rather have no
ternary than certain eyesores.  This is an attempt to make an end-run
around them.

If the pro camp cannot come up with at best one, or alternately a few
proposals that we can vote up or down then they should lose.  They
have no consensus on a ternary operator; they just have a lose
collection of language changes, each of which has a tiny bit of
support, and each of which can function as a ternary operator.  I
don't see any chance of that happening.  There are too many people in
the pro camp who are willing to take one of _several_ alternatives.
So keep at it, and get yourself a consensus.  It looks like it it
working just great for your side to me.  The anti-side has seen
a raft of defections as people try to come up with something they
would stomach -- and have done so.  Today my sense is that you have
4 candidates with broad support, and a few that have only their
creators backing them.  This is progress; give it some more time.

Laura