Zitat aus "The Principles of LiquidFeedback, 1st edition":
- 3. prohibit reverse beat-paths:
- One may decide that a winning initiative must never be
- tied in a Condorcet’s paradox (including any “weak” Con-
- dorcet paradoxes with ties) with the current status quo. In
- other words: If the Smith set (see glossary) contains the
- status quo, then the status quo always wins. In combina-
- tion with direct supermajority requirements or beat-path
- supermajority requirements, this prohibts cycles of the sta-
- tus quo due to slight changes of voting behavior. A positive
- side effect of this option is to enforce that a winner always
- has a simple majority when compared directly to the sta-
- tus quo, and this winner will always have the best Schulze
- rank unless it is the status quo. Thus possible “unstable”
- results (see also option 4 below) are avoided naturally.
- 4. detect multistage majorities:
- One may select whether an initiative should be disqualified
- as winner if letting it win could cause another initiative
- (which didn’t have the required direct majority or super-
- majority in the first ballot) to win in a repetition of the
- ballot. Using this configuration option, we thus disallow
- results that are to be considered “unstable”. A prohib-
- ited unstable result in the sense of this rule is defined as
- follows:
- An initiative A being better ranked than the status quo is
- an “unstable” result (and thus must not win), if and only
- if there exists another better ranked initiative B such that
- (1) more voters prefer B to A than vice versa, and (2) more
- voters prefer B to A than voters preferring B to the status
- quo or less voters prefer A to B than voters preferring the
- status quo to B.
Condorcet Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox
- is a situation […] in which collective preferences can be cyclic, even if the preferences of individual voters are not cyclic
- for example, [majority prefers] candidate A over B, B over C, and yet C over A
Smith-Set: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_set
- "is the smallest non-empty set of candidates in a particular election such that each member defeats every other candidate outside the set in a pairwise election"
Status Quo
- the status quo is that condition that will continue to be, when any motion to
- change the current situation is rejected.
- LiquidFeedback treats the status quo as an implicit “candidate” in final
- voting
- LiquidFeedback internally converts the preferential bal-
- lots with approval and disapproval section of each voter in such
- way that the added status quo is ranked below those initiatives
- which the voter approves and above those initiatives which the
- voter disapproves:
Tie-Breaking
- While ties are usually resolved by a second ballot or by drawing
- lots, neither of these approaches is suitable for LiquidFeedback:
- A second ballot could cause a massive delay of the determina-
- tion of the final winner, as the voting phase would need to be
- repeated, which might take days or weeks according to the pol-
- icy that is in effect.
- […]
- The other option, drawing lots (i. e. randomness), is also not an
- option because LiquidFeedback aims to provide results that are
- verifiable by the participants. Using a random generator could
- not be verified by the participants […].
- For the reasons explained above, LiquidFeedback falls back
- on a very simple mechanism for breaking ties: In case of a tie,
- the initiative which was entered first wins. While this approach
- may appear arbitrary, there is a reasoning behind it: Assuming a
- system where there are ballots about change requests, a tie usu-
- ally means that the change request is not approved and thus the
- previous proposal is kept. Both LiquidFeedback’s approach and
- change requests yield to the same result, where that initiative
- wins that was created first. To not discourage initiators to up-
- date their drafts, it is always the creation time of the first draft
- that is taken into account for tie-breaking between initiatives.
"Erklärung" warum Ablehnungen auch gewichtet werden können:
- As LiquidFeedback lets voters express preferences in the approval as
- well as the disapproval section of a ballot, LiquidFeedback aims
- not only to avoid a division of support amongst those proposals
- that are both favored to the status quo but also discourages
- voters to vote in favor of a proposal for the sole purpose to
- outrival another proposal.
Ich verstehe das als "technische Lösung für soziales Problem", eventuell fehlt mir da die Erleuchtung?
- As LiquidFeedback lets voters express preferences in the approval as well as the disapproval section of a ballot,
- LQFB erlaubt Wählenden, Präferenzen sowohl bei Zustimmung als auch bei Ablehnung auszudrücken
- deshalb
- LiquidFeedback aims
- to avoid a division of support amongst those proposals that are both favored to the status quo
- eine Aufteilung der Unterstützung zwischen den Vorschlägen zu vermeiden, die über den Status Quo favorisiert werden
- [and] discourages voters to vote in favor of a proposal for the sole purpose to outrival another proposal.
- schreckt Wählende davon ab, nur deshalb für einen Vorschlag zu stimmen, um einen anderen Vorschlag zu übertreffen
- Can haz Beispiel?
Es gibt 2 nicht im Admininterface vorhandene Schulze-Tunings:
- defeat_strength
- How pairwise defeats are measured for the Schulze method:
- ''simple'' = only the number of winning votes
- ''tuple'' = primarily the number of winning votes, secondarily the number of losing votes
- tie_breaking
- Tie-breaker for the Schulze method
- ''simple'' = only initiative ids are used
- ''variant1'' = use initiative ids in variant 1 for tie breaking of the links (TBRL) and sequentially forbid shared links
- ''variant2'' = use initiative ids in variant 2 for tie breaking of the links (TBRL) and sequentially forbid shared links