Discuss mailing list

[Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281 AT gmail.com>]

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