Amendment: SE Poll Settings

Drogue · December 14, 2002, 00:31

I propose we change the Consitution so that:

Quote:

May NOT:
Change the social engineering settings if there hasn’t been a poll saying it is ok.

Is replaced by:

Quote:

May NOT:
Change the social engineering settings unless there has been a definitive (50+%) "Yes" vote in favour of the change.

In the Director of Social Engineering section. This is article 1 in this poll.

I also propose that we insert:

Quote:

May only be started by the Director of Social Engineering. They are purely decision-making polls.
All polls to change social engineering settings should be in this format:

Poll:
*Single choice
*Only names options (Must include current setting)
*Abstain option (Or Xenobanana)
*Write-in-option
*Open 3 days minimum

First post:
*Further explanation of question (if needed)
*Only names options
*Link to discussion thread
*Expire date.

If this poll gives a clear majority (50+%) to one option, then that option is put into place. If not then there is to be a ‘head to head’ poll in this format:

Poll:
*Name the two highest scoring options from above poll (if two are equal second, the Director of Social Engineering can choose which one goes through)
*Abstain option (Or Xenobanana)
*Write-in-option
*Open 3 days minimum

First post:
*Further explanation of question (if needed)
*Only names options
*Link to discussion thread
*Expire date.

Into the Polls section, under it’s own heading of ‘Social Engineering Polls’. This is article 2 in this poll.

Open for 3 days (needed before a new Free Market poll is posted).

Options for article 1 and 2 are:
Yea
Nea
Write-In
Abstain.

Please choose one option from each of the 2 sections only.

Link to Discussion Thread.

Remember, 2/3 is needed to pass.

Drogue · December 14, 2002, 11:47

Some people have voice opinions that this system is inefficient. I don't think it will be that inefficient, simply because we change SE settings relatively rarely, and it means there is a chance that there might be one more poll for the decision, while cutting out extra polls needed for when there is no clear majority. Moreover, I think that quite often, with only 3 options, we will need only 1 poll to get an absolute majority.

Multiple votes would give some people twice the voting power, as they can vote for 2 options, ie. If you did not want FM (as many people seem to with the high Never vote in Archaic’s poll) you can vote for Green and Planned, and that means that, even if exactly 50% support FM, it will not get a majority. A vote for Planned and Green would count as 2 votes against FMs majority.
For example, say we have 10 people who want FM, 5 that want Planned and 4 that want Green. This should mean FM gets an overall majority and is chosen. However, under multiple votes, if 2 of the Planned voters vote for Planned and Green, so as to keep FM out, then FM gets 10, Planned gets 5 and Green gets 6, so FM does not get a majority, even though more than half the voters support it. This is undemocratic, as it perverts the voter’s wishes.

We’re the UNPK, as such we believe in democracy above all else, and certainly above efficiency. How can we justify an undemocratic system in the name of efficiency, and stay true to our ideals? That would be hypocritical.

Pandemoniak · December 16, 2002, 06:20

Doing a second turn with the runner-ups , if one option dont have an absolute majority.
If we allow multiple vote we do not require absolute majority but relative majority.

We cvhose the first sytem, but the second shouldnt be ignored or called "undemocratic", it is democratic if we consider a relative majority, and its actually better to represent the will of the people, specifically in SE where numerous people have strong "against-SE choice" setting, that let them make vote "anti-choice" (ie, one would vote Planned, Green, and Simple to avoid FM, as Drogue said). The multiple vote is also a natural barrier to avoid split vote, since you can vote two things at the same time.