[EM] 06/16/02 - Let's `Sort-Out' the Candidates:

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:58:51 -0400 Donald E Davison wrote:

> 06/16/02 - Let's `Sort-Out' the Candidates:
> 
> Dear Mike,
> You wrote: "Here's a puzzle question.  How can a group of 20-50 people make
> collective decisions on various subjects - WITHOUT the use of a chairperson
> (benevolent dictator) to "control the meeting", decide when is the "right
> time" to call for a vote, etc.?  The current methods are stifling to the
> various members who have good ideas but can't bring them to a vote."


Your best choice almost certainly is to have a chairperson (as defined in 
Robert's Rules of Order (RROO)) rather than let one person be a dictator 
(even if Mislabeled as supposedly being a chairperson).

A few details in RROO make this workable:
      Point of order - a priority motion that must be attended to, even 
interrupting what was occurring - could be questioning what the chair was 
doing or failing to do.  If there is a parliamentarian the chair may ask 
advice, and may accept or ignore that.  Anyway, the chair decides publicly 
how to respond to the POO.
      Appeal - members' response to an unacceptable response to POO.  If 
the person moving to appeal can get a second the members decide what to do 
about the appeal.
      If the chair chooses to ignore POOs, this is "Dereliction of Duty" 
and possible remedies, depending on circumstance and assembly rules, may 
include - it is time RIGHT NOW, THIS INSTANT, to have a chair who honors 
the rules better.

Also, among the members there must be at least a few who understand RROO 
well enough to debate intelligently as to appeal, and the rest of the 
members must recognize and defer to them (or study RROO a bit - what 
happens every day rather than the whole monster book).

A few details in Donald's words inspire a response (beyond noting that 
RROO has had over a century of fine tuning to protect members):

> 
> Donald:  If we are to have a group function with more freedom and less
> structure, then they must not be forced to make a judgement on some subject
> by a deadline (if possible).  People think and act at different rates and
> times, besides, some may already have a full plate, or maybe they are
> waiting to see the `lay of the land'.  Whatever, the group should have the
> freedom of ample time.
> 
> I propose the following system, which has less structure:
> 
>   * The entire group is to be connected via email subscription list.


AGREED that email is a GOOD method for conducting informal debate, that 
permits thought before considered response to what has gone before.

RECOMMEND IRC (Internet Relay Chat) for affordable interaction appropriate 
to a meeting without the expense of meeting in person.


>   * Any member of the group can propose a measure to be voted on.
>   * The measure must receive a second in ten days.
>   * More than one measure can be on the table at one time.
>   * The members vote whenever they want to vote, there is no deadline.
>   * A vote can be changed anytime, provided the change is make before the
> possible passage of the measure.
>   * All casting of votes and changes are made known to all members.
>   * If and when a measure receives a passing vote, then the measure becomes
> law at that time.
> 
> A passing vote will need to be defined.  I favor a conclusive majority of
> two-thirds for two good reasons.  One: two-thirds means that more members
> approve of the measure, that is, more members than fifty percent plus one.
> Two: two-thirds avoids the `flip-flop' condition in which a measure may be
> passed by only a few votes only to be over-ridden a time later by a few
> votes.  If a law is a good law then it should have some staying power.
> 
> 
> Some measures and/or candidate elections will need a deadline, which the
> proposer should include as part of the proposal.


That proposer should provide a deadline for the measure to succeed or fail 
is proper.

NEED to consider possibility that some "members" may never get around to 
vote - what does this do to 2/3?

As to elections - deadline should be provided by law, NOT by proposer.
> 
> This routine can also be used in place of any single-seat candidate
> election method.
>   * Of course, there must be a deadline.
>   * Candidates can be nominated anytime before the deadline.
>   * Candidates are free to withdraw anytime before the deadline.
>   * Votes can be cast and recast anytime before the deadline.
>   * Anytime a candidate receives fifty-plus-one before the deadline, that
> candidate is elected, the election is over.


Counting current votes, or total membership?


>   * If no simple-majority winner, then the leading candidate at the
> deadline is the winner.
> 
> Let's allow the voters to sort things out.  Instead of some so called
> expert or politician telling the voters and/or candidates which single seat
> election method they should be using, we should let the voters and/or
> candidates sort things out themselves.


Well and good for assembly to decide on laws, as discussed above, but 
elections should be required to honor such laws as exist.

As to sorting out, words below seem wasted.  Plurality should be adequate 
for this type election.  In case of a true tie, voters have said they care 
not which one of those tied, so anything without its own bias, such as 
publicly flipping a coin, should be adequate.

> 
> An example of how this sorting out would work, take the case of three or
> more candidates in which two are tied for the lead.  One possible solution
> would be if some voters changed their votes, but which voters?  The voters
> of the two tied candidates are not going to change, they are too close to
> victory.  But, some of the voters of the third place candidates may see
> handwriting on the wall and consider changing their votes.  They may wish
> to have a say between the final two candidates.   If so, the tie will be
> broken and the election will be over, we have a winner (drum roll please).
> So, allowing the voters to change their vote is one path towards solving
> problems.
> 
> The other possible solution would be if one of the candidates decided to
> withdraw, but which candidate is most likely to do that, not one of the two
> tied candidates in first place.  They are too close to victory.  Instead,
> maybe a third or lower place candidate will see handwriting on the wall and
> decide to withdraw.  This will force his supporters to change their votes.
> No one likes to force anyone to change their vote, but sometimes it is
> necessary to get on with electing someone and wraping up the election.
> 
> This same sorting on the part of the voters and/or candidates can also come
> into play in the event the leading candidate is disliked by some voters and
> other candidates.  They will need to make decisions that they don't care to
> make, but it may take that to sort the candidates out.
> 
> Yes, the members should be able to sort-out the candidates, if they refuse
> to `Sort-Out', then they deserve who they get.
> 
> 
> Regards,
>    Donald Davison, host of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum    108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708    607-687-5026
              Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em