Limited voting in EM

[John De Lasaux]

At 02:52 AM 3/15/97 -0500, election-methods-list at eskimo.com wrote:
>In a message dated 97-03-14 02:59:22 EST, you write:
>
>>Rob L wrote:
>>> The voting method that I proposed was *only* for finished documents.
>>> That's it.  Nothing else is binding in my book.
>>> 
>>> It's a pure YES/NO vote (or SUPPORT/OPPOSE, I could care less) for
>>> finished documents.  When a finished document is approved, the old
>>> FAQ is replaced with a new one.
>
>This is too bad.  Because the topic of voting methods is still evolving, I
>was really hoping for a method whereby this group could work *together* to
>evolve and iterate a FAQ which would become better and better over time.  I
>had thought that the process of piecewise proposals and debates would help us
>all to better understand the subject.  There is nothing like trying to create
>an explanatory document to induce better understanding!
>
>Instead, Rob will only allow very limited voting on finished products.  This
>likely means that the work of generating a new draft(s) will be done offline
>individually or in small groups.  The EM members will only have very limited
>opportunities to rubberstamp a finished product.  And we are likely more
>likely to flip-flop between competing proposals (if anyone bothers) rather
>than moving steadily toward a group consensus.
>
>I have some ideas for FAQ contents, but I am not especially interested in
>trying to write one all by myself.  I would be happy to participate with a
>sub-group in this, but only if it is organized as a "society of equals"
>instead of the usual hierarchical methods.  I had thought it would be fun to
>use the EM list as a whole for this (where non-participants could simply
>ignore "CFV" messages) but it looks like Rob won't allow this.
>
>If anyone wishes to participate together to generate a new FAQ offline -
>please contact me.  Perhaps a smaller working group...?
>
>In the meantime, Rob seems determined to "maintain control" of this group (by
>limiting the topics we can vote on).  And there is already confusion since
>his version differs from my proposed version.  So it would probably be best
>if *he* would reiterate just what are the voting rules for this group
>(including allowed and disallowed topics for voting).
>
>Disappointed,
>Mike S
=======================
Not being an expert in the business of proposing voting methods, I have been
sitting back and lurking as this discussion evolved.

I perceive two disturbing outcomes already.

1. The experts are having trouble even deciding what to vote on.

2. In opposition to a generally concilliatory attitude in most of the
participants, it appears that one person wants to be the "Tom Foley" and
decide arbitrarily what comes to the floor for a vote. This will stifle
useful discussion, just as it does in Congress. 

In a discussion group such as this, the object is to find out what each
person can bring to the table and compare it to our own list of what is
important and how it fits into our own overall view. We *all* learn by
putting forth smaller ideas, hashing them out, and combining them into a
larger picture.

For example, when doing "Definitions", each one will undoubtedly require
some discussion. Some will even engender heated debate. If you don't believe
me, just try it.

I am concerned that those of us who know we need it have lost an opportunity
to interact and thereby learn.

Or, do some of us who know everything NOT need to learn?

Also disappointed .....

John De Lasaux

The Clintons: At least their
FRIENDS have convictions.