ANN: Ballot for Complementary PEP308 Ternary VOTE

Aahz aahz at
Thu Mar 6 06:34:54 CET 2003

In article <slrnb6d3ud.kle.philh at>,
phil hunt <philh at> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:07:13 -0800, Erik Max Francis <max at> wrote:
>>Aahz wrote:
>>> And I disagree with this.  From my POV, an expanded approval vote
>>> makes
>>> much more sense for this specific situation.  (By "expanded", I mean
>>> that each item to be voted on can be marked as YES/NO/ABSTAIN.)
>>> While in some sense that would be less robust than Condorcet, the
>>> increase in simplicity and raw data would be well worth it.
>>I agree -- at the very least there should be been some feedback on each
>>and every form (including a "no change" option), whether
>>affirmative/negative, or affirmative/indifferent/negative.
>The whole point of Condorcet is that it allows you to do this.

Figuring out how to do a properly nuanced vote with Condorcet isn't
trivial.  The mechanism for voting is the same as STV, and I've seen too
many people screw up in not understanding that the way to vote against
something is to not rank it.
Aahz (aahz at           <*>

Register for PyCon now!

More information about the Python-list mailing list