Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] Clarification of voting rules

This is actually a good point. Nothing prevents us from using alternate
systems to reach a compromise (in this case the reintroduction period
length) - even without a "no" option (or at most in the first round to
gather opinions of the other side), and then after reaching it making a
proper yes/no vote where you vote for either approving the compromise or
not.


On 21.07.2018 2:44, Al Beano wrote:
> IR doesn't always return what many people view as the most
> satisfactory result. In my eyes it's certainly preferable to FPTP, but
> you can still end up with a result that doesn't represent anyone's
> first choice.
>
> A simple majority doesn't guarantee that anyone's first choice will be
> met either, but it does guarantee that a majority of members are
> happier with the new proposal than are happier without it.
>
> I'd also prefer a system where the proposer is empowered to formulate
> their proposal in whatever way they think is best - if an informal
> poll of members shows that they are split between two options, they
> could introduce compromises - ultimately, their goal is to create a
> proposal which will pass, so it's in their interest to do this in the
> most effective way possible while preserving the spirit of what they
> want to get done.
>
> IR is often talked about in the context of electing _people_ - since
> we're voting directly for motions and not representatives, we have a
> lot more flexibility. This keeps the end result simple and decisive.
> We are a small organisation, after all.
>
> albino
>
> On 21/07/18 01:32, Jonah Aragon wrote:
>> Can you elaborate on why instant-runoff voting isn’t an acceptable
>> alternative for multiple choice proposals?
>>
>> Jonah
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Al Beano <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Recent events suggest that we should clarify a set of voting rules.
>>>
>>> My view is that all proposals submitted to the ML (or DokuWiki as
>>> the case may be) should be subject so a simple yes/no vote, and pass
>>> with a majority over 50%. A tie would result in the status quo being
>>> preserved. No other options would be allowed.
>>>
>>> This system means that all proposals that pass have the full support
>>> of the majority of voters. Proposals with more complex
>>> implementation details (e.g. the current one re "Reintroduction of
>>> past proposals") can be formed however the person writing them wants
>>> - including by gathering the thoughts of members using the ML or
>>> other means - but they bear no weight until ratified by a simple
>>> majority of members.
>>>
>>> albino
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
>>> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]