[Wikipedia-l] Vote on voting method for final round

[Ray Saintonge]

Guillaume Blanchard wrote:

>I mean, you select some solutions
>(before the vote start), then you start the vote and block any new
>proposition. 
>
At some point that has to be right, as long as there initially were 
ample opportunities to present new alternatives

>For example, imagine you want to select a color. Favorite
>colors are black and white (just an example), so people propose those 2
>colors to be voted. After some time you see both colors have closed score.
>With standard vote system you must select one of those colors (by any
>method) and make happy only half of people instead of be able to propose a
>gray that may satisfy more people (just an example). 
>
The question should really be, "Was there an opportunity to suggest gray 
before the voting started?"  In a truly democratic system there is no 
excuse for negligence.

>I think discussion,
>proposition and vote have better to take place concurrently. I mean allow
>participant to propose new solution and change vote during the decision
>process. I'm aware that is only a personal point of view but I expected to
>ear some alternative solution instead of the eternal debate on the best way
>of count vote. But perhaps I just miss those discussions.
>
When a large number of options are offered, there needs to be a way to 
narrow those options.  When 10 options are offered the top vote getter 
can easily win a plurality of 15% which then means that 85% of the 
participants voted for something else.  Several rounds of voting where 
the lowest vote getter(s) are dropped until someone has an absolute 
majority is a workable system.  The second round of voting in French 
elections somewhat reflects that.  Transferable ballots try to 
accomplish the same thing in one round.

Once something has been decided there still needs to be a process that 
allows for change.  The conditions for change (in the current situation 
in relation to a logo) need to be made clear.  This will allow newcomers 
to have a say, and it will allow others to change their vote.  An 
overthrow threshhold needs to be established that prevents rapid changes 
in policy between two very equally supported alternatives.  Thus 
'''changing''' an agreed logo could require that 60% of voters support 
the change.  Voting could take place on any alternative proposal with 
minimal support (say 10 Wikipedians).  Voting could remain open for an 
extended period of time: 90 days? 6 months?  The threshhold would not be 
very easy to reach, but everyone's opportunity to having meaningful 
influence would be respected.

>>Later, there will have to be some major policy decisions.  In the
>>past, these have always been made by consensus, which in reality boils
>>down to us listening to all sides and encouraging different factions
>>to accomodate each other so that we can find solutions that are better
>>all around for everyone.
>>
At times a decision MUST be made to prevent everything from grinding to 
a halt.  An excess of democracy was a fatal flaw for the Paris Commune 
of 1871.  By contrast American Republicans deserve all the appropriate 
credit for having no fear of making the wrong decision. ;-)

>>That process works, or at least it has so far.  But there have always
>>been concerns about how well it would scale.  The more people we have
>>involved, the more important it is that we have a more formalized
>>_process_ that people can support even when they don't support the
>>final _outcome_.
>>
The scaling problem is real.  Nevertheless every formalization carries 
the risk that it will diminish the consensus process.  The more 
hard-wired the formalization, the greater the risk.  To support the 
implementation of a majority opinion, the minority must be able to see 
the result as fair and not unnecessarily diminishing their rights.  

>>Let me explain that further with an example from the real world.  I
>>support, generally speaking, the processes of constitutionally limited
>>democracy.  So in that sense, I support the system *even when the
>>candidate I don't prefer* gets elected.
>>
Candidates in a "representative" democracy are different from issues. 
 An elected representative must often decide on a very wide range of 
issues that were never a factor in his election.  Inevitably he must 
take positions with which you do not agree.  

>>As we get bigger, we need to preserve and improve on our success in
>>that area: when decisions are made, they need to be as inclusive as
>>possible, i.e. to make as many people happy as possible, and at the
>>same time, they need to be made by a process that people can support
>>even when their exact preferences are not chosen.
>>
>>Do we agree about that?
>>
>I agree consensus become harder as we get bigger. But instead of switch
>decision process to a standard vote method, we can perhaps just create some
>rules to make consensus easier to achieve.
>
Voting only ''appears'' to make things easier.  More rules seems just as 
anti-consensus.

>>But it is JUST A LOGO.  So a serious amount of relaxation is probably
>>in order.  :-)
>>
>>--Jimbo
>>
Certainly

>Next time, a non-American organizer!?
>
I don't think that Eric is American.

Ec