ternary operator vote

[Laura Creighton]

> >> If "no change" is an alternative, you can express disapproval by
> >> voting for that alternative.
> 
> Bengt> A: +1
> Bengt> B: +0
> Bengt> C: -0  # actual opinion, no way to express
> Bengt> D: -1  # ditto
> Bengt> no change: +1 means what?
> 
> In approval voting, you are presented with a collection of
> alternatives, and you choose which of those alternatives you are
> willing to accept.
> 
> You can choose more than one.
> 
> 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.
> 

This is the reason why people will never accept this method of
voting.  Having decided that I want A, but would rather eat worms
than accept B, I have no way to protect myself.  If I vote my A,
and B wins, then it's worm salad for me.  If, on the other hand,
I so badly want to avoid B that I will vote no-change even though
I support A, then I haven't helped A's cause.  When C wins over
A by 2 votes, I will be insensed.

And, should one proposal pass, those who genuinely hate any change
whatsoever will be even angrier.  They will claim, with certain
justification, that they could have got a majority of Pythonistas to
vote against _any_ proposal.  However, they could not get a majority
to vote against _every_ proposal.  That is a much harder job.  The
more proposals the pro camp comes up with, the more the vote is
stacked so that one of the pro outcomes is selected ... unless
some of the proposals are so horrible that you can mount a scare
campaign and say 'vote no change or risk seeing this abomination
every day'.

None of this has much to do with reaching a consensus.

Laura


> 
> -- 
> Andrew Koenig, ark at research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
> -- 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list