Option 2 defeats Option 3 by ( 142 - 107) = 35 votes.
Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 185 - 61) = 124 votes.
Dear Mr. Secretary,
As a Second for the winning Option 2, I was personally happy with last night's vote, but I nonetheless object to your certification of these tentative results:
Option 2 defeats Option 3 by ( 142 - 107) = 35 votes.
Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 185 - 61) = 124 votes.
Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35 votes?
If so, did Option 2 pass the majority test only because Option 3 was available separately?
I believe the vote should be redone.
(as far as I can see, 90% of voters preferred one of these options to theWould you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35 votes?
Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
I believe the vote should be redone.
A repeat without Option 3 is needed so that your certified results can properly reflect the electorate's position with respect to the question
posed on the ballot while also honoring our constitutional majority requirement.
Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to
replace the Project Secretary.
<div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">:wq</div></div>
Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
Option 3 has no effect on the majority results. The options are compared
to the NOTA option.
I currently don't see anything wrong with this vote, so I see no reason
to redo it.
Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted that
option to the ballot. It inadvertently weakened the constitutional
protection against changes to the constitution.
The vote was procedurally defective.
Folks opposing "secret votes" should never have placed Option 2 ahead of NOTA, and would not have done so if Option 3 had been absent.
Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to
replace the Project Secretary.
I do not believe you have enough information to make this assertion with complete confidence.
Regardless, it doesn't matter procedurally. The remedy that you're asking for doesn't exist in the constitution.
This is an absurd escalation when you have no procedural basis for what you're demanding, and it's quite concerning coming from someone who is currently standing for DPL. It's also pointless; anyone else who replaces the Project Secretary will have to do the same thing. The discretion
you're asking for simply does not exist in the constitution.
Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35 votes?
[...] which is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the statusBest,
quo" on the ballot, and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option.
I suppose you and Kurt are saying that the denominator in the majority calculation is so exactly described that there is no room to read any protective spirit into the language of the constitution.
On 2022-03-27 19:31, felix.lechner@lease-up.com wrote:
Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at
the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35
votes?
This seems to be inline with what the proposer intended, though. From
the text of Choice 3:
[...] which is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status
quo" on the ballot, and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option.
The latter explicitly reaffirms the status quo, the former does
not. I guess this is why Holger proposed Choice 3.
The latter explicitly reaffirms the status quo, the former does not. I
guess this is why Holger proposed Choice 3.
Hi Kurt,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> wrote:
Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
People were confused.
Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time
for rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted
that option to the ballot.
It inadvertently weakened the
constitutional protection against changes to the constitution.
Neither the option's proponents nor the voters understood the
deleterious effect. (Nor did I.) At a minimum, the public was entitled
to a warning from the Project Secretary.
Option 3 has no effect on the majority results. The options are compared
to the NOTA option.
Folks opposing "secret votes" should never have placed Option 2 ahead
of NOTA, and would not have done so if Option 3 had been absent.
"Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
"Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
>> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
>> changes to the constitution.
Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
I think Felix's point is that if we had choice 1, 2 and Nota,
People who preferred option 3 would vote N>2=1 or some such.
Because choice 3 was on the ballot, people had options that reflected
their preferences and so some of those people voted 3>2>N.
Felix's point is that the voters who preferred option 3 actually had the power to make it win, provided they were willing to say that they found option 2 unacceptable.
Felix's assumption is that if they realized they had that power, they
would have exercised it.
Meanwhile, the uncertainty you and I both suffer would be resolved by
a simple redo of the vote with a ballot that carries the appropriate
warning. That is all I asked for.
Hi Kurt,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> wrote:
Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have
been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
People were confused.
Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time
for rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted
that option to the ballot. It inadvertently weakened the
constitutional protection against changes to the constitution.
The constitution is the project's foundational document.
Neither the option's proponents nor the voters understood the
deleterious effect. (Nor did I.) At a minimum, the public was entitled
to a warning from the Project Secretary.
The vote was procedurally defective.
Option 3 has no effect on the majority results. The options are compared
to the NOTA option.
Folks opposing "secret votes" should never have placed Option 2 ahead
of NOTA, and would not have done so if Option 3 had been absent.
I do not believe it is possible to reconstruct the electorate's intent
solely from the beat matrix. A better approximation, however, would be
to also consider the 107 votes who placed Option 3 ahead of Option 2
in the latter's majority test. That would yield 185 / (61 + 107) = 1.1
which is less than the factor of 3 mandated by section 4.1.2 of the constitution.
As far as I can see, the result is unconstitutional and thus invalid.
I currently don't see anything wrong with this vote, so I see no reason
to redo it.
Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to
replace the Project Secretary.
The blurb that's sent out with the votes says:
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of
the above" choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank.
which to me suggests that if one ranks something as equal to NotA then
one is not marking it as unacceptable, so presumably it is counted as acceptable -- is that how such votes are calculated?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:26:51PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
>> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
>> changes to the constitution.
Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
I think Felix's point is that if we had choice 1, 2 and Nota,
People who preferred option 3 would vote N>2=1 or some such.
Because choice 3 was on the ballot, people had options that reflected
their preferences and so some of those people voted 3>2>N.
So the only thing I see is that they now had the option to express there preferences, while they were limited in how to express their preference without option 3.
One way of interpreting the NOTA option is to look say what you think is acceptable or not. Without option 3 on the ballot, you can not say you
think option 1 and 2 are acceptable but prefer option 3. You need to say option 1 and 2 are not acceptable, while you actually think they are acceptable. With option 3 on the ballot you can really talk about it
being acceptable or not.
Without option 3, it's probably beter to talk about preference rather
than being acceptable. If you prefer no change, you just mark it below
the NOTA option, even when you think option 1 or 2 is acceptable.
Option 3 being on the ballot can make it more likely for option 1 and
2 to pass, but that's because people can actually express their opinion.
Our voting system works best when all option are on the ballot. Adding
more options is not a problem, it has clone independence.
Felix's point is that the voters who preferred option 3 actually had the
power to make it win, provided they were willing to say that they found
option 2 unacceptable.
Felix's assumption is that if they realized they had that power, they
would have exercised it.
But option 2 won, so even if there were people who voted strategically,
it's not a problem in this vote.
My understanding of the implications of this process (and Kurt is authoritative here, of course) is that if you rank NOTA equally with an option, that vote is not part of V(A,D) or V(D,A) since neither option is preferred over the other, and therefore has no effect either way on
whether an option is discarded because it doesn't meet majority.
Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
The blurb that's sent out with the votes says:
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None of the above" as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None of
the above" choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank.
which to me suggests that if one ranks something as equal to NotA then
one is not marking it as unacceptable, so presumably it is counted as
acceptable -- is that how such votes are calculated?
The relevant provision of the constitution is:
A.5.3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default
option by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
1. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters who
prefer option A over option B.
2. An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N,
if V(A,D) is greater or equal to N * V(D,A) and V(A,D) is
strictly greater than V(D,A).
3. If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority ratio
is S; otherwise, its majority ratio is 1.
My understanding of the implications of this process (and Kurt is authoritative here, of course) is that if you rank NOTA equally with an option, that vote is not part of V(A,D) or V(D,A) since neither option is preferred over the other, and therefore has no effect either way on
whether an option is discarded because it doesn't meet majority.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:59:19 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,246 |
| Posted today: | 1 |