Exaggerated opinions

[DEMOREP1]

Date:  Mon, Apr 20, 1998 4:57 AM EDT
From:  Saari
Subj:  Re: Exaggerated opinions
To:      DEMOREP1

In a message dated 98-04-18 23:21:30 EDT, Demorep1 wrote:

<< Are you suggesting that averages or medians be used for votes ?
 Example- 0.99 Support, 1.00 (or -1.00) Oppose
 What is the math ? >>

Mr. Saari answered--

By a "vote" I mean "An expression of opinion about a specific
candidate/proposal."  So this system applies equally and does not distinguish
between the two separate cases: voting (N choices on a ballot) and voting
(support vs. oppose on a given idea or proposal.

It is important to remember that there are at least four distinctly-possible
opinions (not counting degrees):  SUPPORT,  OPPOSE,  Neither/Neutral, and
Mixed.  These can be expressed in any convenient form - one might be "degree
of support"/"degree of opposition".   "Simple Support" would be expressed as
"1/0", "Neutral/don't care" would be expressed as "0/0", "Simple opposition"
would be "0/1", and "Mixed (both support and opposed for whatever reasons)"
would be "1/1".  

In all cases, the final "score" for any proposal is simply the sum total of
all "support" votes, DIVIDED BY the sum total of all "oppose" votes.  The
result is a ratio - the ratio of supporters vs opposers.  Example: 100 voters.
60 don't care or vote "Neutral".  Of the 40 who care (including a few double-
voters) the final tally is:  Supporters: 35,  Opposers: 10.  The proposal gets
a "score" or ratio of 3.5 and either passes or not depending on what threshold
of passing score the group has previously chosen to operate under.

Note that a truly "democratic" non-dictatorial system must allow ANY proposal
to be posted for a vote at ANY time on ANY subject with a minimum of hassle.
Any system which puts the power to restrict proposal-making into the hands of
a minority is hierarchical if not dictatorial.

In another form, suppose that a proposal is "posted" by writing it on the top
of a piece of paper, and the empty space below is divided by a horizontal
double-line.  A person casts a vote of support by writing their initials above
the line and circling them (for ease of counting).  If they wish to "double-
vote" (subject to whatever cost/penalty the group has chosen) they would write
and circle their initials twice - but in general this would not happen too
often I would think.  If they wished to cast a "partial" vote (say for a good
but less-than ideal candidate" they could put a 1/2 or 0.9 or whatever in the
circle - again I would expect this to happen occasionally but not often enough
to be of significant hassle.

If a proposal is of no interest either way, the most polite vote is "Neutral"
- put your initials between the double lines.  This has no effect on the final
"score" but serves to "register" that you have in fact considered the proposal
and have chosen to have no opinion.  To vote either Support OR Oppose when you
really don't care or don't understand the issues is legal but is generally
impolite and inconsiderate.  If I don't feel much about an issue I would
rather simply allow it to pass or fail based on what other people think,
rather than muddy the water with a "blind opinion" - I could be needlessly
opposing a sensible idea OR needlessly supporting a bone-head proposal.

If you are opposed, put your initials below the line and circle them.  ALSO
put in the circle one to three words of "reason" - this feedback is vital to
the process because it alerts the backers of almost-passed proposals how to
fix them for later success.  (If you need more than 3 words, use a pointer
(e.g. "see back") to some other blank space where you can write at more depth
if desired.  If you feel strongly opposed, cast a double-Oppose vote; it is
nice but not vital to have different reasons for each Oppose vote.  As usual,
pay the proscribed cost/penalty for a double-vote.  For very mild opposition,
cast a fractional Oppose vote which puts up a small roadblock but not a huge
one.

If you have a "Mixed" opinion, meaning that the proposal has merit but also
has some flaw, then a "mixed" vote is just the ticket.  Cast both a support
vote and an oppose vote of the desired degree.  Of course, if the group is
operating under a 5:1 passing threshold then a "1/1" mixed vote is really an
Oppose vote.  (An Oppose vote needs 5 Support votes to counteract it.  A mixed
1/1 vote needs 4 Support votes to counteract it...) But it is a nice way to
express that you think the proposal has merit but needs work.

As another example, suppose you like a certain proposal very much, EXCEPT that
is has some clumsy wording you think could be improved (but you are still
willing to support it anyway).  Try a vote of  "1/0.1" or  "Support"  /  "0.1
Oppose".  This indicates "Support, but I have a nit-picky objection
nonetheless."  This vote will move the proposal in the direction of passage
(because your cast vote ratio of 10:1 is higher than the passing threshold of
5:1) but does not support it as strongly as a full unmixed vote.  If the
proposal fails for whatever reasons, your nit-picky Oppose vote (with stated
reason) will alert any future proposers to fix the problem you are objecting
to (assuming that fixing it doesn't create another problem...).

In the current parliamentary procedure, we see lots of discuss,discuss,discuss
and occasional votes at the end.  This system reverses that.  Assume 100
voters.  You start with a hair-brained proposal which is voted on and fails
30/15.  But it gets some support, and the reasons for opposition can mostly be
easily remedied.  So you write a new version which is voted on and fails - but
not by much  33/10.  Now rather than pester 18 of the "don't cares" to care
(they won't), you will do much better by looking real hard at the reasons for
the 10 objections.  If you can make a change which preserves the desired
spirit of the proposal AND will appease 5 of the 10 objectors without creating
a whole new opposition camp then you will succeed.  So you do so.  Your third
version converted 5 of the 10 opposers into supporters (and only created one
new opposer).  Your third version gets 36/6 and now passes because it exceeded
the required 5:1 ratio.

A long answer to a short question.  The reason I am targetting BOTH fixed-
ballot voting and basic (majority) parliamentary procedure (e.g. proposals and
amendments) is that it appears to me that both need fixing.  Both can be shown
to produce illogical outcomes EVEN ASSUMING that all participants are
rational.  Both allow for outcomes to be manipulated.  And both incorporate a
hierarchical structure (e.g. ballot-preparer function, chairperson function)
which should be designed OUT of any system which claims to be "democratic".

Thanks,
Mike