# Amendment to PEP 13 to allow approval voting

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/amendment-to-pep-13-to-allow-approval-voting/2428>\
**Category:** Committers\
**Tags:** governance, election\
**Created:** [October 5, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/amendment-to-pep-13-to-allow-approval-voting/2428 "2019-10-05T14:42:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tim.one](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/tim.one/32/282_2.png) [@tim.one](https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2019, 3:30pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/amendment-to-pep-13-to-allow-approval-voting/2428/12 "2019-10-07T15:30:43Z")

</div>

> [@thomas](#):
>
> none of the discussions about PR are strictly speaking relevant to _this_ proposal, and it doesn’t sound like either of you are actually objecting to the proposed change, am I right?

Right! I’m strongly in favor of moving to pure approval (your proposed change).

I’m also in favor of _thinking_ about PR - pure approval wasn’t designed for multi-winner elections, and for reasons explained can easily result in “tyranny of the majority” if the voters are strongly polarized along any axis (whether by organized party or unconscious bias).

I doubt that applies to us at this time, and am also not sure that PR would be an adequate response if it did. Still, while people may be annoyed to hear it 😉, it’s good to realize that pure approval for multi-winner elections has bad failure modes too.

It’s nevertheless better than approval voting with a limited number of approvals per voter.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/amendment-to-pep-13-to-allow-approval-voting/2428)._