Re: For our own good: splitting the vote. Thoughts?
Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The goal of a vote is the ranking of options; this doesn't necessarily
> coincide with a clear assessment of the opinions of the population.
> Furthermore, splitting non-disjoint options into separate votes has a
> myriad of other problems that Manoj has identified.
Is there any issue-independent way of deciding what's a substitute
proposal and what's a proper amendment to the proposal?
A quick check suggests that, for example Quick Consensus and Robert's
Rules place essentially no limits on the scope of amendments, while
Democratic Rules of Order does not allow amendments that negate,
change topics or amend amendments. Most deliberative systems seem to
limit amendments by some type of resource starvation (time, support of
voters), which doesn't seem probable here IMO. I wonder about a limit
on the proportion of changed words, but would that work?
Thanks for any help,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct