board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Charter Amendments: VOTE CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 6 of 6  [ 119 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6
Author Message
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 5:59 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
A. I approve the additional text

Question 2:

B. Omit the requirement that votes run for two weekends inclusive

(For the reason that I know of more people who are not here at weekends than those who only are here at weekends.)


Question 3:

1. B
2. C
3. A
4. D

Question 4:
A. I approve the text


Question 5:
A. I approve the text


Question 6:

A. I approve the text


Question 7:

A. I approve the text


Question 8:
A. I approve the inclusion of this provision


Question 9:

B. I do not agree


Question 10:

A. I approve this text

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 8:56 pm
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
I have to say, having been gone for two weeks, that seeing people talking about sharing a discussion about transcendental numbers over cocktails reminds me once more that I am home.

:love:


Question 1: A.

Question 2: A.

Question 3:

1. D
2. B
3. C
4. A

Question 4: A.


Question 5: A.


Question 6: A.


Question 7: A.


Question 8: A.


Question 9: A.


Question 10: A.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 9:58 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Faramond: re your questions:

Q2: Abstain. I can't quite figure out why this needs to be revoted, nor do I care or have a judgement on which option should win.

All of the original terms of ratification are being revoted in this ballot. We had to decide whether the terms would be the same for amendments as they were for original ratification.

I am the one who asked for a voting option on the two-weekends inclusive because I wanted the option to vote against it. So far, every time a committee member wanted an option added to the ballot I've done it - in this case, I myself wanted an option.

We're not considering separate options for the 67% supermajority because (a) everyone said that's what they wanted in the Binding Votes ballot; and (b) no one asked for a second option here. So we're just voting to carry that over to amendments.

Re extension of the quorum:

To me it's screwy that a 19-11 vote means defeat while a 18-11 vote means a possible second chance.

Well, we can reopen this for discussion after the vote is done - God knows we reopened everything else that anyone had a problem with. But right now I disagree with your approach to this. I don't think that the validity of the vote should be tied in any way to whether the proposal is succeeding or failing.

Vote at the end of normal voting period is 18-yes, 11-no. Because the vote failed to achieve quorum, voting is extended 7 days and 5 more yes votes roll in while zero new no votes come in. The amendment reaches quorum and passes 23-11.

But it could also go the other way - 5 more no votes roll in, and then we know for sure that the board does not support the proposal.

Suppose the reverse were true: 18 no votes and 11 yes votes. Should the voting period still be extended? Yes. Perhaps during that seven days enough yes votes would come in to turn the vote around and the proposal would pass.

Without a quorum, you just don't know what the board wants. So you give the same quorum opportunity to all votes, regardless of which way the wind is blowing.

Whether or not the proposal gets a supermajority is a completely different issue in my mind.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 10:15 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
1. Okay, I will reverse my abstention, and will cast a vote in question 2. I don't question your inclusion of it in the ballot, I just didn't know where it came from nor knew on what basis I should make a decision.


2. I don't demand that this issue with question 6 be reopened. I'm just stating my objection that should have been made earlier.


Scenario:

In the last hour of the vote a supporter of the amendment who hasn't voted yet sees the vote is 18-11 with a 30 quorum needed. This supporter realizes one more yes vote will actually doom the amendment, so he holds his vote back in hopes of talking up enough support later for the amendment to pass during the 7 day extension.

That's the sort of scenario I want to avoid.


I wonder, why not extend the voting period as well if the amendment has reached quorum but is just short of 67%? Maybe 10 more yes votes to zero no votes would come in, and we would know for sure the board actually supported the proposal!


The text of question 6 as written just gives me a creepy feeling in the possibilities it allows. If the rest of the committee likes it then so it goes, and I won't say anything else about it. But in my opinion it's a bad loophole.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 10:56 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
That's the sort of scenario I want to avoid.

I don't especially want to avoid that scenario. If the person feels that there is broad support for the proposal and people have just been too lazy to vote, they should be able to tweak the system as far as it will tweak to bring about their own aim - in this case, getting an extra bit of time to mobilize voters.

Let me give you another manipulative scenario .... taking this recent issue in the Bike Racks. Suppose a committee convened and decided that a revote was legal, and put the question to a poll.

Those who thought it should not be changed and should not even be voted on should logically withhold their vote in the hopes that a quorum cannot be reached. But say on the last day of voting, they realize that a quorum was reached, then they need to rush in and vote "no" to make sure the proposal does not pass. In this case, using your rule, the vote probably would be extended because it is the "no" votes who have been withholding their vote and the "yes" votes who have been voting. But perhaps the vote really does not have broad support, and the vote that reaches a quorum comes in at the last minute so that people don't have a chance to change their strategy?

You can imagine what an uproar there would be.

I think that it is quite natural for voters to look for ways to work the system and I don't really want to stop them from doing that unless is produces inequities. No matter where we put cutoffs, there are going to be close shaves in the vicinity of the cutoff. I think it would produce a serious asymmetry if we only allowed extensions in the case where a proposal was winning. A proposal that is losing should enjoy the same opportunity to be reinforced or turned around.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 11:32 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Faramond,

You obviously have missed out on all of the fun of participating in boards of directors. Manipulation, including abstention (think about that one ;) ) and last minute switches are key strategies.

I don't have a lot of affection for the extension, but if you are going to extend,it seems to make more sense to me to extend the vote for a quorum than for the reaching the threshold of winning. I view waiting for the quorum, as validation of the vote, being tacitly neutral and the threshold, as the measure of the outcome, being partisan. It's a weak distinction, but I think it's real.

I think my pessimistic prediction of reaching a quorum, based on extrapolating the real voting, precipitated this.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 15 Jul , 2005 11:57 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Jn: I don't especially want to avoid that scenario. If the person feels that there is broad support for the proposal and people have just been too lazy to vote, they should be able to tweak the system as far as it will tweak to bring about their own aim - in this case, getting an extra bit of time to mobilize voters.

I just find the idea that this sort of behavior appalling. The idea that someone would deliberately withhold a vote to change the parameters of the vote is obscene to me.


Jn: Those who thought it should not be changed and should not even be voted on should logically withhold their vote in the hopes that a quorum cannot be reached.

I sure wouldn't use this logic. Either I decide the vote is wholly illegal and refuse to vote in it at any point no matter what because it's an illegitimate vote, or I decide that even though I don't approve of the vote happening I'll still participate and go ahead and vote no right away. This middle way you describe, where the quorum level is used as a weapon is appalling to me.


Your scenario brings up a good point, Jn. (Though I have a feeling you won't think it's a good point. ;))

Given a quorum of 30, why exactly should a vote of 21-9 pass while a vote of 21-5 fail? I don't think it's logical that four extra no votes would somehow make the proposition succeed. It's bizarre!


IS: Manipulation, including abstention (think about that one ;) ) and last minute switches are key strategies.

Crap, you've smoked out my master plan with question 2. :D After a series of abstentions and vote reversals, I'm going to brilliantly manipulate the system into miraculously mandating that the ten day period contain 3 weekends! ;)


I think the end effect of all this discussion is that I now realize I have to vote against the extension to reach quorum no matter what. I'd rather just say the voting period is 7 days longer from the outset, if that's what people think is needed.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Jul , 2005 12:38 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Faramond :D

You're free to vote against the quorum extension if you want, of course, but the problem with the following ...

I don't think it's logical that four extra no votes would somehow make the proposition succeed. It's bizarre!

is that you don't know that they are going to be "no" votes until after the people have voted. In fact they are very unlikely to be so. If someone saw that a proposal they opposed was failing due to lack of a quorum, and would pass if they voted, it would be illogical for them to vote.

(Actually, the example you gave applies with or without the extension. No votes contribute to the quorum just as yes votes do.)

Of course in an ideal world people would behave with total honor and treat their vote as the sacred, unsullied thing that it ought to be ;)

but hey ... :neutral:



Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Jul , 2005 1:16 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Well, I'm free to vote as I want to, and the rest of the committee is free to vote the sensible way, and life is free to go on ... works for me ... :D


I guess the bottom line is I think the structure of the vote should be set in stone before the vote begins, with no conditional elements involved.

And that's the last word I'll say about it. I've had my say, and now it's time to move on.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 16 Jul , 2005 8:55 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Question 1:
A. I approve the additional text


Question 2:
A. Keep the requirement that votes run for two weekends inclusive


Question 3:
1. D
2. C
3. B
4. A

Question 4:
A. I approve the text


Question 5:
A. I approve the text


Question 6:
A. I approve the text


Question 7:
A. I approve the text

Question 8:
A. I approve the inclusion of this provision

Question 9:
A. I agree

Question 10
A. I approve this text

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 12:01 am
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
1: A

2: A

3:
1.D
2.A
3.C
4.B

4: A

5: A

6: A

7: A

8: A

9: A

10: A

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 1:03 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

After moving the ballot and results to the ballot archive, I'll show the final text version in the first post here.

The ratification thread will go up tonight or tomorrow.

Results:
Question 1:
A = 10
B = 0

Question 2: A TIE
A = 5
B = 5

Question 3: (after runoff)
A = 0
B = 1
C = 1
D = 8

Question 4:
A = 10
B = 0

Question 5:
A = 10
B = 0

Question 6:
A = 9
B = 1

Question 7:
A = 10
B = 0

Question 8:
A = 10
B = 0

Question 9:
A = 9
B = 1

Question 10:
A = 10
B = 0

The tie is whether to make votes run for two weekends inclusive. I don't know what to do folks. Suggestions are welcome.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:16 am
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Quote:
The tie is whether to make votes run for two weekends inclusive. I don't know what to do folks. Suggestions are welcome.
Jn, that's too bad!

I'm not an original member of the committee (and admittedly wasn't paying 100% attention to everything that happened before I joined :neutral: )-- has there ever been a tie before? If so, what was done then?


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:29 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Yes, Anth. We had a tie once before, having to do with how long a member had to wait before requesting a reversal of an immediate ban.

The committee was split between 1 month and 3 months. We were able to draft a compromise, where the wait was a minimum of one month, but the Rangers could wait an additional two months to actually convene the hearing if they wished to do that.

Here, though, I don't see any possible compromise. Either the vote has to cover two weekends or it doesn't.

I think I would like to just build this into the ratification vote and let the members decide.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:32 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Is this going to be an up-or-down ratification poll?

If not, we could refer the question to the members as part of the vote.

Are there just 10 of us now? Or did someone not vote?

:scratch

If none of that helps, I'd suggest that it would be in accordance with our principles not to make a change that did not get a majority—treat a tie as defeat and stick with two weekends inclusive (although I agree that that is a pain).

Edit: Cross-posted with Jn. I think that's the best answer if it's possible. And it will actually let us see how many people care about the two-weekends thing.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:43 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I have a solution!

Let's count again! ;)

On question 2 I have a count of B-6, A-4. I've counted this twice.

It appears to me option B wins.


Top
Profile Quote
Anthriel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:47 am
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
 
Well then. I suppose that does solve THAT!


:whistle:


:D


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:48 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I get the same, B-6 and A-4.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 17 Jul , 2005 2:54 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Yes, and it's Mossy's vote that I tallied as an A. Maybe she did come back and change a couple of her ballots. (Or maybe I just recorded it wrong the first time.)

I should double check for that sort of thing before striking sums on the tally but I never do. :oops:

OK, so this tie is not a tie, but we've got the other tie to deal with, and it's tougher than this one would have been. :(

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 6 of 6  [ 119 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jump to: