Re: [opennic-discuss] [RESULTS] Reintroduction of past proposals, IR, R1

Jonah Aragon wrote:
> For what it’s worth, this is the correct method of counting that should have been followed. By typical IRV rules, the vote should already be over with H prevailing.
>   

That is one of the issues I have had with this process.  It seems that 
the process was called "instant run-off" but the actual intent was a 
multiple-round election, which led to the confusion when I actually did 
cast an IRV ballot choosing to entirely withhold my support from some of 
the options.  There is nothing inherently wrong with multiple-round 
balloting, especially on a mailing list, but it needs to be clearly 
described.

> The fact that only two choices remained by the second round does illustrate the problem even with IRV followed correctly, in that with so many options and so few voters, the system doesn’t really work effectively. But I have much less of a problem with this outcome because it came as a result of the stated counting method.
>   

This is also why I moved for an aye/nay ratification vote for the IRV 
result.  I would support requiring an aye/nay vote for any change to 
policy, provided that that vote may be to ratify the result of some 
other process.

> After seeing these proposals in action lately I’m convinced all votes going forward should be exclusively yay/nay votes.
I disagree here.  IRV and other models can be very useful for reducing 
an "adjustable" proposal to a simple "make this change"/"keep status 
quo" option, as occurred in this case.


-- Jacob



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