Condorcet analysis of Official PEP308 Ballots

[Anthony Baxter]

>>> Peter Hansen wrote
> Let's try this approach: the vote was NOT binding.  That could be a
> reason to call it "not the most important thing" (thought I can't find
> those words, or the ones you quoted, in Norman's posting).

My bad. I tried to do the short summary thing, and fouled it up. Bad 
anthony, bad anthony. Apologies to Norman.

> Not only that, but even if a "majority" said "no change", weren't there
> a larger number collectively asking for a change, but not agreeing on 
> the specifics?  If that's so, and since the decision is entirely up to
> Guido, he could well conclude from the results that there should be
> a change, but that it should be (for example) his original proposal
> as it's elegant and clean and easily implemented.  And while there may
> be some, uh, "discussion" of this, it would be the *right* thing
> since he is, after all, the BDFL.  

Dunno. It seems to me that with the (to me, anyway) overly confusing
voting process, all that's really possible to say from the voting
results was "some people like it. a similar sized group of people
don't like it", for various values of "it", and a generous value of
the word "similar" to mean "around the same, a bit more, or a bit less".

At the end of the day, it doesn't feel like the voting process gave
us much new information. But with the voting results as they are, 
pretty much everyone can pick-n-choose their results - this would
be useless. The vote's happened, punt the whole lot to Guido, don't
try to specify this way or that way to interpret the results to give
a chosen outcome.

As you said, it's Guido's call. I'm comfortable he'll make a decision
that'll be something we can live with.

nobody-mention-the-lambda-ly yrs
Anthony