[python-committers] Vote on governance will happen between Nov 16 - Nov 30

[Brett Cannon]

FYI I posted a suggestion on how to resolve the "should we change from
IRV?" question at
https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8001-python-governance-voting-process/233/56
<https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8001-python-governance-voting-process/233/56?u=brettcannon>

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 17:38, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:

> [Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek at gmail.com>[
>
>> A major problem with approval voting IMO (and range and score) is that
>> it constrains how voters can express themselves:
>>
>
> Well, that's an objection I never heard before - and expect I'll never
> hear again ;-)
>
> To the contrary, range/score voting are the _most_ expressive, allowing to
> you make both gross and fine distinctions, and even to say "no opinion at
> all about this one".  The only thing you can't do is express non-linear
> preferences (whether flat-out intransitive, such as "I like A better than
> B, and B better than C, but C better than A", or seemingly inconsistent,
> such as "I like A 2x better than B, and B 4x better than C, but A only 3x
> better than C").
>
> In range/score voting, you give each a score according to your true
> preferences as the granularity of the universe of possible scores allows.
> For example, if scores are limited to be in range(100), give your most
> favorite score 99, and if you favor them 3x more than your second-favorite,
> give the latter score 33.  If you can't stand your second-favorite at all,
> give them score 0.  If you like both your top choices the same, give them
> both score 99.  If you only _know_ about your top candidate, and really
> don't know anything about the other two, don't give the latter two scores
> at all.  Then you're effectively saying "I did all the research I had time
> for, and will leave it to others who did research the other two to rate
> them".
>
> This seems to me supremely relevant for the task at hand:  a substantial
> number of detailed proposals that, in fact, won't _all_ be carefully
> studied by the people asked to vote on them.  Merely ranking them from 1 to
> 6 (whatever) _forces_ people to fabricate opinions about proposals they may
> not have even read, forbids them from saying, e.g., "I like #2 and #5
> equally", forbids them from saying "#1 is ten times more attractive to me
> than #3", forbids them from saying "I have the tiniest of preferences for
> #5 over #4", forbids them from saying "I didn't even read #6, and so have
> no opinion about it", and so on.
>
> In approval voting, the universe of scores effectively shrinks to {0, 1}.
> It's not _as_ expressive by far.  There you're limited to saying one of "I
> can live with this" (score 1) or "I can't live with this" (score 0).  The
> winner is whichever one the most people can live with.  Or, if people can't
> refrain from playing dishonest tactical games , whichever one the most
> people _claimed_ they could live with.  What more can you ask for?  If
> people lie about their true preferences, it's hardly a voting system's
> fault if it delivers a result consistent with the lies it's told.
>
>
>> If you really like one candidate but your second choice is so-so but
>> better than the third, do you "approve" of your second choice? If you
>> do, you'll be helping to defeat the candidate you really like. So as a
>> voter your hands are artificially tied.
>>
>
> If you're stuck with the relatively inexpressive approval (0 or 1) voting,
> as above:  you can live with your second-favorite or not.  Vote
> accordingly.  If you vote "I can live with them" and they win, what's your
> _actual_ complaint?  You _said_ you could live with them.  If that's an
> outcome you can't live with, you should have voted 0 for them instead.  If
> you want to specify _degrees_ of approval, then you want range/score (with
> a larger universe of possible scores) voting instead.
>
> > [skipping stuff about elections-in-general]
>
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/attachments/20181025/edc4ccd4/attachment.html>