# Boards

## Mathsy type question? any ideas on this...

ok, imagine there are three motions given to a group of people to vote on: a,b,c,.

In theory, you want all three to have an equal chance of passing.

members can back, or vote down each motion.

However, if, a or b pass, c will not be offered up.

Is there a problem of equity here? I feel there is but am too dense to put my finger on it/express it

Help?

## number of voters you got

## surely that means there's only a 25% chance c will be offered up?

100 - (50% + (50% of 50)) ?

## so there's only a 12.5% chance c will pass

## I think this is right, which means it has a 12.5% chance of passing.

relative to a 37.5% chance for the others?

## no, the way it's written a and b have a 50% chance of passing each

there is a 25% chance neither will pass. if so, if c has a 50% chance of passing of its own right, its overall chance of passing is 12.5%

## This is assuming all three motions have an equal chance of passing

I can demonstrate easily that 3 motions could be phrased that they would have very different chances of passing...and since that is often the 'want' of people putting motions to the public (i.e. to get what they want yet make it appear as if someone else has made the choice i.e. the public)

## could you do this? p.s. only 1 can pass.

## No I was careless in my original reading

if all motions have a 50/50 chance then

a has a 50% chance of being picked

b 25%

c 12.5%

so you might want to pick the one with the highest pass rate......unless this is deliberately phrased to reflect the person posing the question has a preference (perhaps ease or liklelyhood of success of implementation) but they want to make sure that the preferred method is also acceptable to the public.....which is understandable...I suppose C could just be a bit pie in the sky#

## I did drama.

## well act out the answer then you fuck.

## Excellent response.

And no more than I deserved.

## Yes there is a problem of equity here

as the phrasing of the rules is bias against C, so that even if C got backing, if A and B both just passed with 50.0001% for, then C would still not be considered.

Instead, why not stipulate that if all 3 are voted as passed, then make sure that the 2 with the highest pass rates get passed?

## only 1 item can pass in total, how does this affect things?

## The original wording was a little confusing.

Creaky didn't read it again and thought (as I initially did) that MrBones was implying two out of three were going to be voted through.

## yes you are right, I am careless and shipshod....

I hope the below post makes up for it

## whoops sorry will recalculate I misread it as A and B not A or B

so if they are considered in order and they all have equal likely hood of being voted for then

A has a 50% chance of being the one picked

B has a 25% chance of being the one picked

C has 12.5% chance of being the one picked

with none passing having 12.5% chance

## not if everyone decides which one they are going to back before voting commences.

which they probably will.

## I know, I mentioned that it is not likely that they would all have 50/50 chance

but that is all that we have to go on.

So I sort of agree with you.

But I think that I can see exactly where I would put this sort of choice before a public.

Supposing you have a problem which you wish to tackle but it needs democratic approval.

you have several proposals to tackle the problem

A) is low risk, proven and likely to get result, but will only give you the basic solution to the problem

B) is medium risk, likley to be achievable, more expensive than A but will give a full solution to the problem

C) is high risk, very expensive, will give full solution to problem with knobs on and possibility of future features to be added, unoproven technologly

## That only works if everyone randomly votes Yes or No.

If not then it's not the correct answer because clearly everyone should have a preference and vote with it.

Really it comes down to how easily people are swayed early on. What if the vote gets to 'c' and then people think, "Hang on, choice 'a' was actually better now I think of it"?

My suggestion down there is better.

## Yeah but it's only a default position.

I mean we can't actually say at all because we don't know what motions a, b or c represent or how massively gormless the voters are.

## THIS IS WHAT I CAN"T UNDERSTAND!!! AAAHH

so, do each have an equal chance, but are presented in a skewed way so that a majority is able to back any of the motions??

## Well the bottom line is that if only one can pass each cannot have an equal chance of passing...

Oh fuck it, you're clearly ignoring all my posts. :)

## I'm not Theo. I promise!

But is the fact that anyone wanting to vote for C would have to vote down the other three notions (baring in mind that a majority is needed) the only really source of inequity?

## The point is your opening statement is weirdly contradictory.

If all three have an equal chance of winning then it should be a situation in which people vote for the one they want not each in turn. Or, a PR situation where they rank each in turn and the winner is determined from there.

The scenario of three individual options that everyone votes up or down is for use where of options a, b and c 0 to 3 can be voted through, since this is theoretically what could happen.

You've managed to combine both which can never really work. When you add emotions and human decisions into the mix where a, b and c represent things people will have opinions about and which will have lasting effects it's impossible to really make any sort of judgement.

## No, because A would be voted on first and win and neither of the others get voted on.

Which is my point about the contradictory nature of the question.

## I understand from the opening post it is one vote at a time

a, then b, then c

But if a is voted through b and c are ignored; if b is voted through, c is ignored.

## Surely the way round it is just to allow everyone to only vote for one of the three.

Otherwise you have to all vote on each and only the one with most support (most votes) would win.

If you're just voting on a, then on b, then on c then it's clear you must already have put a, b and c in order of most-wanted outcome, which would imply all three are not equal in some way that is then reflected in the inequality of each's chance to be picked.

## do they know about motion c before a and b are officially tabled?

## Yesh

## sorry, yes.

## You are the Churchill dog and I claim my £5.

## well in that case all this maths is either pointless or unnecessary, no?

until the day you can mathematically quantify people's potential preferences with any certitude that is.

## Cake or death?

## :)

I meant cake!

## one option has to have a majority, so they maths is relevant I think.

unless i'm being a dumb

## Maybe read my post up there...

http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4305146#r6307832

## so what happens when all three motions have been voted on

and none have received over 50%?

This is like the AV threads all over again.

## This is why democracy doesn't work.

## There is no missing dollar

## Tell that to Aloe Blacc

## You'll find your references to modern popular culture tend to be lost on me.