On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:30:56PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Giving a quick read-through of Appendix A, I see several problems:
>
> 1) Every resolution that has amendments is supposed to have two votes:
> A.3.1) A vote to decide which amendments to apply, including "Further
> Discussion"; and A.3.2) A vote to accept or reject (or keep discussing) the
> final form of the resolution.
>
> This in my mind defeats the strength of the Condorcet voting method, which
> should be able to find the best compromise out of many options. Since the
> process of actually voting seems to be the largest source of grief
> recently, requiring multiple formal votes on an issue should only increase
> the grief.
The way I see it, A.3.1 and A.3.2 are intended to define the overall
structure of the vote (that you have ammendments and then some
final decision), but A.3.3 is intended to introduce flexability,
where needed.
> 3) The situation with the Goerzen/Towns proposals demonstrated the
> problem with the Expiry section (A.5). This needs to be fixed.
Oh?
> 4) What is the intent of A.6.3 ("All options which are Dominated by at
> least one other option are discarded, and references to them in ballot
> papers will be ignored.") This would seem to imply that if there is no
> unambiguous winner (if the Smith Set is not singleton), then all the
> options will be discarded. Obviously, that's not right.
This has already been discussed to death, hasn't it?
> 5) A.6.8 is using "quorum" to have a strange meaning. A quorum
> normally describes the minimum total number of voters, not the minimum
> margin of victory.
Doesn't bother me -- quorum basically means the number needed to proceed.
Also, we don't have any way of measuring the number of people who are
"attending" the vote, and it makes a lot of sense to use a threshold
that's easily measured, and which favors consensus.
> 6) Single Transferrable Vote among the Smith Set is one way to decide the
> winner, but it isn't necessarily the best.
And, what would you say the best is? [And: why?]
> Raul Miller suggested a possible rewording of A.6 that clarifies the
> current procedure, but leaves some of it's warts in place. Why not take
> this opportunity to fix some of the problems while we are at it?
I take it that you mean that I used the word "quorum," kept the "Single
Transferrable Vote" concept, and that I didn't touch A.3? And, that you'd
(*) like to use some word other than "quorum",
(*) might want to toss "Single Transferrable Vote" (or maybe not --
you've not yet said that anything is actually better)
(*) like to see A.3 rewritten?
Thanks,
--
Raul