Re: [ga] Procedure.

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 11:17 PM 13/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

 > I'm still trying to get your point, and I'd like to ask
 > you to make it more clearly.

I'll try.

 > Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I
 > wrote my message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
 >
 >	[ ] motion 1
 >	[ ] motion 2
 >
 >	[ ] abstain
 >
 > The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to
 > _both_ motions.

So then one cannot abstain on one and vote yes
or no to another? I don't think this is a crucial
point either way. For me at least I don't abstain
on votes unless I have, for example, a conflict
of interest. But this strikes me as a decent
example of what can happen when one more or less
makes up the rules whilst one goes along. Let us
say that some voter wishes to vote yea or nay on
one and abstain on the other. Under this method,
they can't. Add an option three and the problem
multiplies. I don't see why an abstain for each
wouldn't be an improvement, though as I say I don't
consider this a crucial point, just an example
of the law of unintended consequences.

 > In this situation, there are basically three things which can happen:
 >
 > One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).
 > In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes
 >  should win.

Agreed. But the mere presence of both options
can change the result that would have been
received if only one option had appeared on
the ballot. That is why I suggest that a
subsequent motion should either modify the
previous with only one going forward, or be
a separate motion. In the real world if there
is a particular order of business before an
assembly there aren't dueling motions. If the
second motion is about a substantively different
matter then by all means add it to the same
ballot (with a separate opportunity to abstain)
if it saves time and resources. But by taking
one motion on the floor and adding another that
is in essence an amendment of the first, and then
perhaps a third, et cetera, seems to me a decent
way to thwart the will of the majority. Any mover
(and ten supporters) can water down the ballot.
BTW, I think 10 supporters out of 500+ members
is quite a low threshold.

Like it or not, there is and should be a first
mover advantage in deliberative assemblies. It
focuses members of the assembly to come up with
useful motions in the shortest time. If instead
one can sit back and wait for others and then
gather 10 supporters and get on the ballot, well,
I hope I'm not the only one who can see how this
can be used to thwart a motion that otherwise
might have been accepted.

 > Both motions get more than 50% yes.
 > In this case, there's   obviously more
 > consensus on the one with more votes,
 > so that   should be the winner.

As I say, it isn't impossible to imagine that
both motions would receive broad consensus,
yet only one could win. That is one reason
why dueling motions is not a Good Thing.

 > Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In
 > this case, there's   obviously no consensus
 > at all, so no motion would be accepted.

Agreed. Whereas if there had been a single
option it isn't impossible to imagine that
it might have received 50%+. Another good
reason not to have dueling motions.

Yet another reason not to have dueling motions
is because the best right answer, or the
least wrong answer, may be a combination
of parts of one, parts of another. The
more complex the motion(s), the more chance
that the result will not be optimal. Better
to work out as much as possible through
amendments methinks.

 > I admit that this is a rather "creative"
 > application of the GA's voting rules.

And I submit this might not be the best
time to be creative. Roberts Rules of
Order, for example (there are others),
is very much like Boolean logic. Handled
properly one can build great things.

This probably isn't the best time to
introduce Robert's Rules either, :) but
using some aspects and not others will
often lead to illegal states.

 > As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules
 > would mandate that the question on the ballot is something
 > like this:
 >
 >	Please select one of the following options:
 >	
 >	[ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
 >	[ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
 >	[ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.

This begs the question(s) that I've already raised
about why there is more than one Option, but OK...

 > You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of
 > the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that
 > case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets
 > more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be
 > documented, and we could at least try to return to more important
 > things.

This might work reasonably well with two options,
as voting for one is much like voting against
another, therefore this equates most closely with
a single option with a yes/no (though as I say,
with complex motions one could lose the best of
both). But it doesn't scale, add a third option
and two minorities averaging 26% each will
ensure the defeat of a third option, add a
fourth and that drops to 17%, et cetera...
Therefore options with no chance of success
can kill off an option that had some chance
of success.

 > (Then again, taking this vote at all most likely
 > implies that we are already bending some rather
 > important rules, as William has argued.)

I think there is some merit to William's argument.
I won't try to bend my head around whether there
is sufficient merit as, thankfully for all, I'm
not the Chair. :)

 > I'm still waiting for comments on this; I'd suggest
 > that these comments should come rather quickly,
 > since the time window we have for starting an
 > election is limited to this week due to practical
 > constraints at the secretariat, as I already
 > pointed out more than a week ago.

Respectfully, some of the procedure has just been
posted today. I guess that's the price we pay for
just in time (if that) processes, which I know is
not a situation of the Chair's making. But as they
say, it's not what one inherits that matters, it's
what one does with it. -g

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html