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

[Guillaume Blanchard]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> 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.

For my, the question is, who can think about gray before the vote start if
everybody prefere black or white and don't know what other prefere. It's
juste after the vote begin that you can see both colors are appreciate at a
close level and you can think about aleternative solution.

> >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.

Have a way to narrow many options is perhaps a good idea, but if you can't
make new proposition according to 1st round result, the 2nd round is
unnecessary. In fact, according to this 1st round, I'm almost sure the
Paullus logo will won the final vote. So imho, artist had better to create
Paullus logo's variant rather than go on create many new variant of their
own logo that will not be used.

> 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.

It may be a good thing.

> >>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.

Sure, any limiting rules is anti-consensus. But I think there is a large gap
between consensus and standard vote method. Perhaps we can create few rules
thet just help organize a consensus. The first rules we created is "You must
argue any opposition to a proposition". This avoid people who just said "I'm
against!" but I don't think is very anti-consensus.

Thanks for your constructive comments.

Aoineko