[EM] List of primary voting projects & invite to mirroring network

[Michael Allan]

Hi Richard, (cc Metagov)

> > ... And clearly the method tries to [inform decisions] through
> > consensus, even if it's not dynamic.  Still I'm curious.
> 
> Yes, through consensus.  But I don't know what you mean by "not
> dynamic" because, as indicated above, anything can be changed at any
> time.

That's a good design I think.  But even if it *weren't* dynamic, then
I think it would still belong on the list.  That's all I meant to say.
So I've added VoteFair here:
http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:List_of_primary_voting_projects

We have a Knight submission that concerns primary voting, the status
of which is currently up the air.  Knight is about to pick 50
submissions to proceed to the next phase (refinement).  If we make the
cut, then I imagine we could still modify the submission during the
refinement phase, though I'm not 100% sure.

Bearing that in mind, please consider joining us there.  If you agree,
we could try to add VoteFair to the list of providers (currently 3):
https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/free-range-voting/

Mike



Richard Fobes said:
> On 3/28/2013 10:39 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
> > Thanks for explaining, Richard.
> 
> This is an important topic, so I want to help out.
> 
> >> The algorithm does not attempt to identify when the negotiation
> >> process is done.  If the participants have a genuine desire to reach
> >> a mutually satisfactory agreement, then the results will slowly
> >> converge on an optimum set of approved proposals.  ...
> >
> > What drives this change (convergence) in the results?
> 
> Dissatisfaction with the current list of recommended proposals.
> 
> Specifically it happens when a minority fails to get their most 
> important proposal into the list of recommended proposals, or when any 
> group sees a "very bad" proposal getting into the list of recommended 
> proposals.
> 
> >   Do some of the
> > existing participants change their minds and re-rank the proposals?
> 
> It's more like they are seeing which of their proposals are disliked, 
> and splitting those up so that some of the narrower proposals (hopefully 
> the ones they care about the most) will be approved.
> 
> As an example from Oregon history, a proposed law to ban all animal 
> traps failed to get passed by the voters.  But if the law only covered 
> trapping specific animals (wolves & such), then it might have passed. 
> The proposed law would have made it illegal to trap moles, and that's 
> the only way to deal with moles (that anyone in this neighborhood has 
> found to work).
> 
> In other words, the animal-rights activists got too greedy.  Greedy 
> proposals get ranked as "disliked".
> 
> Projecting this issue onto the negotiation-tool usage, if there was one 
> proposal to ban traps that are set for wolves, that might pass.  If 
> there was another proposal to ban the trapping of moles, that would not 
> have passed.  That would have given the activists what they wanted most. 
>   By overreaching, they lost out completely.
> 
> > Or do new participants enter the process and rank the proposals, with
> > those rankings not subsequently modifiable?
> 
> Everything can be modified at any time.
> 
> > In your case, it might not matter.  Clearly your use cases show an
> > intention to inform decisions.
> 
> Yes.  One of the basic ways to find a solution that "everyone" likes is 
> to learn more about what people really want.
> 
> >    And clearly the method tries to do so
> > through consensus, even if it's not dynamic.  Still I'm curious.
> 
> Yes, through consensus.  But I don't know what you mean by "not dynamic" 
> because, as indicated above, anything can be changed at any time.
> 
> Richard Fobes