Voting (was Re: PEP 318

[John Roth]

"Michele Simionato" <michele.simionato at poste.it> wrote in message
news:95aa1afa.0403230250.4c9da7a2 at posting.google.com...
> Ville Vainio <ville at spammers.com> wrote in message
news:<du7n068840d.fsf_-_ at lehtori.cc.tut.fi>...
> > >>>>> "Skip" == Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> writes:
> >
> >     Skip> It will probably be a BDFL pronouncement.  After all, that's
> >     Skip> why he's the
> >
> > Of course it will - still, that didn't stop us from voting before :-).
>
> Ick! Having passed through PEP 308, I just prefer directly agree with
Guido's
> decision without any votation at all ;)

Half of the 308 problem was because Guido wasn't willing to make a decision.

The other half was the voting method used. It irked me at the
time, but I didn't have the background to do a rational critique;
I just knew up front that the specified conditions would kill the
idea.

I'd support the "Majority Rules" algorithm. See the article in
Scientific American (March, 2004 edition) If you run the
algorithm to generate the whole list (rather than just the top
entry) and regard cycles as ties, then it's got the very pleasant
attribute that if a candidate is placed above another, a majority of
the votes case did, in fact, put those two candidates in that
order.

Cycles are, of course, a problem with that method; you just
have to do something else to break the tie. Almost anything will
do if you filter the ballots to just include the issues/candidates
involved in the tie.

John Roth
>
>  Michele Simionato