ternary operator vote
Andrew Koenig
ark at research.att.com
Tue Feb 11 20:35:36 EST 2003
>> 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?
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.
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.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list