Because I didn't get around to this last thread....
Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Jasdoif View Post
Grey_Wolf_c's posts have really clarified things for me: The vote targets the operational level of making the updates to the initial posts, rather than the tactical level of what updates should be made (as I had assumed).
...

...

Great, now I'm not sure I know what I'm doing. Glad it makes sense to you when you put it that way, though.
Well, consciously or not....The voting procedure resolving "what should we do next?" makes a great deal more sense than resolving "what all changes should we make?"; as a number of details that would be nonsense for the latter are logical for the former:

  • It is entirely reasonable for "What should we do next?" to be answered with a single choice.
  • "Nothing" is a perfectly valid response to "What should we do next?"
    • Similarly, rating a choice below "nothing" is a natural way to express "I think this would be an improvement, but not worth the overhead of doing".
  • A combination of options being treated as distinct from its component options acknowledges that options may be codependent (e.g. changing size requirements to allow a new explanation for a big scene with size bonuses) or conflicting (e.g. increasing a Strength requirement to raise a break DC and increasing a size requirement to raise a break DC, resulting in overshooting the target break DC by raising it twice).
    • Admittedly this looks a little awkward if primary support gets broken up between a combination and its component options, resembling a vote split. However, a noticable split in the votes would in fact reflect an actual split in opinion; between those thinking the changes should go together and those who think they should be separate.
      • Further, this is only likely to affect the outcome if there isn't an actual correlation between voter opinion on the options, and if there's another option that has better support than any of them. The ability to choose a broadly acceptable option over highly-polarized-and-conflicting popular options is usually a feature (and if I'm not mistaken, why you chose IRV over FPTP in the first place).
  • The selection of a single change (other than "nothing") doesn't mean all the other options have been voted down; the opportunity exists to push for them again, perhaps after seeing if the results of the selected change and/or new comic information affects their viability.



All that said...Section 4b describing the voting process could benefit from stating some of these things.

  • That "A, B, C" represents a vote for the combination of A & B & C, and only the combination of A & B & C, should be called out. While it certainly makes sense, it isn't intuitive; my assumptions would have been that it represented giving equal weight to A/B/C individually, or that all the subsets (ABC/AB/AC/BC/A/B/C) are equally weighted.
  • Assuming only considering options appearing on a majority of ballots (should any exist) is in fact standard for votes, it should definitely be mentioned as it's not standard for IRV.
  • Mentioning that votes decide which single change is done next certainly wouldn't hurt, to mitigate confusion over votes attempting to reflect all the changes together.