3rd RFD on Changes to Voting Procedures

[Leo]

Neil wrote:

>In article <ELAM3...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles
>Lindsey) wrote:

>> >Or: if there is a top cycle of winning options, the result will be
>> >treated as a win for ROD.

>> Yes, that is the other contender.

>And what if ROD was actually an option and received hardly any votes?
>Voters would have said 'no, we don;t want a second vote' pretty clearly.

I disagree.

>I would oppose 'solution by artificial ROD' - it's a cop-out! ;-)

You need to think clearly and calmly about what ROD is for. It is not
the same kind of option as the others.

If the electorate votes for ROD, it is clearly saying: none of these
names is acceptable: we *want* more discussion.

If the voting pattern causes a top cycle, the electorate is IMV
saying: we can't make up our collective mind: we *need* more
discussion.

That is why I think it is perfectly acceptable to re-open discussion
following a top cycle even if ROD came low in people's preferences. By
ranking ROD low, it is true that people are omitting to say that they
want discussion re-opened. But they are not actively saying they don't
want discussion re-opened if it is sensible and necessary because of a
deadlock. Your argument falls into the fallacy of the excluded middle.
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover

"Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and
be their own judges obey the laws." -Hesse