ANN: Ballot for Complementary PEP308 Ternary VOTE

phil hunt philh at
Thu Mar 6 01:01:17 CET 2003

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.

>I'm somewhat disappointed with the choice of voting procedures for such
>a highly contentious issue


> -- particularly when the discussion about the
>procedures seems to have had no impact -- but the official vote is the
>official vote and that's that.

The only official vote is the one the BDFL makes. It's one person 
one vote and he's the one person.

|*|*|  Philip Hunt <philh at>  |*|*|
|*|*|  "Memes are a hoax; pass it on"     |*|*|

More information about the Python-list mailing list