Hacker News Reader

> Proposal E "Support for multiple init systems is Required" has been firmly rejected.

> In case the message were not clear enough, the runner up option is Proposal E "Focus on systemd".

Typo here, Its proposal F: Focus on systemd which is the runnerup and like you said E has been rejected.

> the runner up option is Proposal F "Focus on systemd". Proposal F is also the most voted option.

I'd say that in this voting system a statment like that is not really important in any way. You'd have to compare it to sum of options that don't focus on systemd as an example or some other combinations.

* fixed proposal letter in the quote

No. As anyone who wants to not to focus on systemd would vote each such proposal over "focus on systemd", having Proposal F be above them all means that the sum of people voting them is less than the sum of people voting for Proposal F.

The strength of the Condorcet method is precisely that adding a new option cannot make an existing option beat another existing option. That is, there is no vote splitting.

> having Proposal F be above them all

But Proposal F is very clearly NOT above them all. 207 people preferred B over F, while only 185 people preferred F over B.

If F were above them all, it would be the Condorcet winner and hence would have necessarily won according to the Schulze method, which it didn't.

B actually is the Condorcet winner, as it would beat every single other option in a one-to-one contest. (The fact that B is the winner according to the Schulze method doesn't necessarily imply that it is the Condorcet winner, as there might not be a Condorcet winner.)

F being the "most voted option" is a misleading and mostly vacuous statement. All that can be said is that more people preferred F to "further discussion" (303 vs. 110), than preferred any other option to "further discussion". In particular, only 299 vs. 111 preferred B to "further discussion". However that has no bearing whatsoever on whether people preferred F over B.

(My theory for why B didn't beat "further discussion" by quite such a large margin as F did, is that in the case of B both the only-systemd "extremists" and the anti-systemd "extremists" preferred "further discussion" to B, while in the case of F only the anti-systemd "extremists" preferred "further discussion" to F.)

I don’t think so. Looking at the most voted option tells you what the majority thinks. The voting system is designed to promote a most agreeable resolution not simply the majority’s choice, but knowing what the majority wants is still interesting.

> knowing what the majority wants is still interesting.

Totally agree.

> Looking at the most voted option tells you what the majority thinks.

My point is that the options are designed specifically for this type of voting system.

Here it is possible that anti-systemd votes are spread across many options and pro systemd votes are concentrated in only one or two. So even if you have most votes on "Focus on systemd" it doesn't mean that it is what most people want.

> Here it is possible that anti-systemd votes are spread across many options and pro systemd votes are concentrated in only one or two. So even if you have most votes on "Focus on systemd" it doesn't mean that it is what most people want.

As I said in my above reply which you've ignored, that is not how the voting system works. It is not possible to split votes like that in Condorcet. Everyone who opposes systemd can vote for all of the non-systemd options and not diminish the chances of any of them.

They are talking about the result of the majority vote, not the result of the Condorcet method.

Doesn't change anything.

The ballot allows you to place all the options you support, in any order you prefer. Let's say I really oppose systemd and want it to lose. I could have voted:

Option 6

Option 3

Option 5

Option 4

Option 7

Option 8 (FD)

This would show on the majority vote as a vote for all of {63547}, and a vote against {12}. Vote splitting is not possible, even in the majority vote section.

The result of the "majority vote" is done preferentially, which means that there is no situation in which vote splitting will occur. It makes no sense to refer to the "majority vote" in this context, because the whole point of preferential voting systems is that (usually) no option wins outright on first preferences alone. Thus the result of the Condorcet vote is the order which the maximum number of people would've been most happy with.

Are people in this thread using "majority" where they should be using "plurality"?

Yep. This thread is a clusterfuck. Still more work to do to educate people about ranked choice voting.

Yes I should have put “majority” in quotes. I was trying to use it in the way the post I was replying to used it which is more accurately as you describe.

Arrow's theorem rises, shakes off the dust, and rides off to cause more havoc.

> Looking at the most voted option tells you what the majority thinks.

No it doesn't. (At least not with the definition of "most voted option" that was used by gioele.)

B would beat F in a one-to-one contest, so the majority thinks that "Systemd but we support exploring alternatives" is preferable to "Focus on systemd".

> but knowing what the majority wants is still interesting

Why? On this case, all it means is that the "we would like to keep other stuff viable" is divided in 5 options.

You mean the runner up is Proposal F, yes?