Debian decides to allow secret votes

Posted Mar 28, 2022 20:08 UTC (Mon) by mattheww (guest, #108205)
In reply to: Debian decides to allow secret votes by nickodell
Parent article: Debian decides to allow secret votes

An important difference is in the effect on the 3:1 majority requirement (which comes in because the resolution was for making a change to the constitution).

As Debian uses a ranked-choice voting system, it isn't obvious how to measure a 3:1 majority. The way they chose to do that is to use the always-present "none of the above" option as an indicator: there need to be 3x as many votes preferring a "change the constitution option" to "none of the above" as vice versa.

So if the "none of the above, and also secret voting is a bad idea" option hadn't been present, and people who voted it over the winner had voted "none of the above" over the winner instead, Option 2 would have been rejected.

It does seem quite likely that the existence of Option 3 meant that people who opposed the change unintentionally allowed it to pass.

I think this is not a good way to manage the 3:1 majority requirement. A simultaneous approval vote would be better (ie, next to each option with a supermajority requirement, you get a checkbox saying "if this option wins, I consent to changing the constitution").

Debian decides to allow secret votes

Posted Mar 28, 2022 21:31 UTC (Mon) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (3 responses)

> I think this is not a good way to manage the 3:1 majority requirement. A simultaneous approval vote would be better (ie, next to each option with a supermajority requirement, you get a checkbox saying "if this option wins, I consent to changing the constitution").

That's already how NOTA works, more or less. If you rank it above a choice, you are approving of that choice. If you rank it below that choice, then you are disapproving of that choice. Most of the time, a choice only needs simple majority approval by this method, but constitutional changes require a 2/3 supermajority.

In this case, it appears that some voters ranked Option 3 over Option 2, but then also approved of Option 2. You may believe* that is an illogical vote to cast, but it is a valid vote, and in a democratic system, we generally presume that valid votes should be counted even if we think they are illogical.

* It might be the case, for example, that some of these voters wanted Option 2 to lose, but did not want it to lose by failing to get a supermajority, because this would be perceived as a "tyranny of the minority" situation, and so they would prefer the lesser evil of Option 2 winning.

Debian decides to allow secret votes

Posted Mar 28, 2022 21:31 UTC (Mon) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

> If you rank it above a choice, you are approving of that choice. If you rank it below that choice, then you are disapproving of that choice.

Obviously, I meant to write "If you rank a choice above NOTA, you are approving of that choice..." instead of the other way around.

Debian decides to allow secret votes

Posted Mar 29, 2022 9:35 UTC (Tue) by spotter (guest, #12199) [Link] (1 responses)

except it's not a validly constructed set of choices where the discussion is about changing the constitution.

It doesn't make sense to have a choice that is simply a value judgement "this is a bad idea" in such a situation.

Debian decides to allow secret votes

Posted Mar 31, 2022 6:48 UTC (Thu) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

Like it or not, option 3 was validly added to the ballot. Objections of this form should have been raised before it received the necessary seconds.

Debian decides to allow secret votes

Posted Mar 28, 2022 21:31 UTC (Mon) by calumapplepie (guest, #143655) [Link]

> So if the "none of the above, and also secret voting is a bad idea" option hadn't been present, and people who voted it over the winner had voted "none of the above" over the winner instead, Option 2 would have been rejected.

Why didn't they just do that in the first place? Vote 3-NOTA-2. We must assume they had a reason. There is no need to further complicate the ballot with additional requirements when the current ballot suffices to express that anyways.