Discuss mailing list

[Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org>]

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 <albino AT autistici.org> 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 discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org