Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:96979 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3969 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2016 21:47:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Nov 2016 21:47:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tendoaki@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tendoaki@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.50 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tendoaki@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.50 mail-vk0-f50.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.50] ([209.85.213.50:33551] helo=mail-vk0-f50.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C6/10-02825-8852E285 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:47:52 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 137so153903189vkl.0 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:47:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AxhxTmksKL4Gq42e2dOdK71/I3SOWa+udBJ8YGsxpzI=; b=UCkDvSzrYZnhWsje75jqG2VuuB0MhlD8iJdaG4Aq08jZwZnVWnvSz/CO3xAiCs8AOY +TQxE2lFSh1gBg+TF3HKyrK3gUQKpIbYt8G3QTxoNU3J13oimBQtTlPwGPaTljLWbQML FcOujC9cOCeV73tzBOW5Pkjokg8H9anqHiCBCLHvO3gfiATlCqRhVrv85lWaN30P2D+a VYYfUvSQI52mzT99oU79dkzXH6bRcu9OZvsQ/IW5L5g/D2PBe4Tobdx6v6C1wGW2T3gy c71z93GuXg5VOBNjb4q3TGEA8RiPOKSydawn5r8I/Uai3GcxvQqNPmWhr4bvrnu5J+yt 431g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=AxhxTmksKL4Gq42e2dOdK71/I3SOWa+udBJ8YGsxpzI=; b=RPQm6qDA+Gu4Q8Pa0hF/4weaS9JYALMY9ZqnP8+J2Nn9R+dkOqSE357mivjg201KkI pVd7+1R4Z//7q+thaJ+LZ+QEBsKUbMDYuwMq66WvV95THwWBksIyGTzzwkrEgNJtoGRi ASPK6w7rXDKSSWwhrA/Rfo9vAnYwSKQ/IPk/0Bjnlc6BDo2Eh59/07hh7innyd0QHmCU DfnAw30OkWfq+ZD7hQ0ZYe4Z6mfmK+In454EtdPI3kunEUtCraOzPazPj7u994z8KCJG 0FBR7GAbsYC6/2AFjvCJPyCCnPm+3TJHRtKdVgY8NcjqC+2SqlYupfiTt28zmrtNy+hE UzRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01U5YDyh6dAZjo3S1vLtQf09jk4wHgUEK/LrY8UoGSkNP1blA5Rb1IvyZned1/0LYaFPxmjFE96Y1OJIQ== X-Received: by 10.31.102.6 with SMTP id a6mr2703547vkc.151.1479419269717; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:47:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.78.26 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:47:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <34.80.31735.22D1E285@pb1.pair.com> References: <1ff261d9-129e-3b97-adf1-0e3e2aad280b@gmx.de> <8b980bff-8173-a1a3-bed9-1b3b556be6cd@gmail.com> <34.80.31735.22D1E285@pb1.pair.com> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:47:49 -0500 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c092d680ba655054186244c Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Abolish 50%+1 Votes From: tendoaki@gmail.com (Michael Morris) --94eb2c092d680ba655054186244c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The study of voting systems is a hobby of mine and I've encoding vote gathering algorithms implementing them before, so this gives me a bit of insight into the discussion at hand that I would like to share. The goal of any voting system is to reach a consensus, and while majority rule (regardless of the amount of the majority) is appropriate for most issues, it is not appropriate for all. Specifically, it fails to work in any situation where the group is being asked to reach a consensus on three or more choices. Ironically the choice put forth in this thread is just such an instance. Stay at 50%+1, Go to 2/3rds, 3/4ths has been mentioned and 3/5ths is another commonly required ratio. Four choices. The best method for dealing with this situation is a ranked choice ballot and an instant run off vote. The ballot itself asks the voters to rank their choices, not just stamp a single one. The votes are counted using the expressed first choice on the ballot. If the measure doesn't pass then the option with the fewest supporters is disqualified. The ballots for that option are recounted and the 2nd choice is added to the counts. If the measure still doesn't pass this process is repeated, recursively until there are only two candidate, in which case the one with the majority wins. This method doesn't work directly with methods requiring a plurality other than a simple majority, but it isn't meant to be applied in the same situations. I'm putting this forward because I worry the group might paint themselves into a corner by requiring all issues require a super majority, because that's going to fall apart when there are three or more possibilities. The methods can be combined, using ranked choice to determine which option will be put up against the status quo, then a super majority vote to determine if that option will be chosen over the status quo. =E2=80=8B --94eb2c092d680ba655054186244c--