Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

I support also the Schneiders approach,which seems straightforward.  Will
there an opportunity now to debate the merits of the two resolutions/motions
(are they resolutions or motions?)  ?      It might be useful to see a
comparison of the two approaches, side by side.  Jamie

Jamie

: >Motion 1
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain
: >
: >Motion 2
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion


:
: Dear all,
:
: the ballot b12 will be designed like the one presented below
: by Marc Schneiders (and already used in the ballot b05 about
: a year ago). *Every* motion which receives 50% of cast votes
: will consider to be passed. We have asked Joanna Lane to join
: the election watchdogs.
:
: Voters will receive a vote outline with a sample ballot,
: as always. There will be an official announcement and the
: usual webpages on the DNSO site, once the exact date and
: time when the voting starts and ends is announced.
:
: (Sorry that we are under such time pressure, but it is due
: to external constraints.)
:
: Best regards,
: /// Alexander
:
:
: At 14.05.2002 15:24, Marc Schneiders wrote:
: >What is wrong with:
: >
: >Motion 1
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain
: >
: >Motion 2
: >[ ] agree
: >[ ] do not agree
: >[ ] abstain
: >
: >Making it a one vote thing reduces the chances of either motion getting
: >50% to a large degree. In fact, the addition of the second motion could
: >then easily be interpreted as an attempt to make sure that there is
: >practically no consensus outcome of the vote possible. Or, if one is
: >suspicious, as a means to silence the GA.
: >
: >On Tue, 14 May 2002, at 09:14 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>
: >> Thomas Roessler presented one possible ballot:
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >> >Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
: >> >message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
: >> >
: >> >        [ ] motion 1
: >> >        [ ] motion 2
: >> >
: >> >        [ ] abstain
: >> >
: >> >The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_
motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which can
happen:
: >> >
: >> >- One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).
: >> >  In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes
: >> >  should win.
: >> >
: >> >- Both motions get more than 50% yes.  In this case, there's
obviously more consensus on the one with more votes, so that   should be the
winner.
: >> >
: >> >- Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In this case, there's
obviously no consensus at all, so no motion would be accepted.
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >>
: >> Gary Osbourne noted that one cannot abstain on one and
: >> vote yes or no to another.
: >>
: >> Joanna Lane has stated that these the two motions either
: >> -- are not conflicting Motions
: >> -- or, if they were, there should be further discussion to
: >>    eliminate one or other Motion.
: >>
: >> My personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting
: >> motions, that further discussion will probably not lead
: >> to a single motion, that we have to take the vote at
: >> a point in time where it still is relevant and that we
: >> have to take time constraints on the Secretariat into
: >> account.
: >>
: >>
: >> Another possible format:
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >> >As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would mandate
that the
: >> >question on the ballot is something like this:
: >> >
: >> >        Please select one of the following options:
: >> >
: >> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
: >> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
: >> >        [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
: >> >
: >> >You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of
: >> >the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that
: >> >case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets
: >> >more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be
: >> >documented, and we could at least try to return to more important
: >> >things.
: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
: >>
: >> Joanna Lane noted that one cannot agree with both or disagree
: >> with both, or agree with one, but abstain on another motion
: >> with this ballot.
: >>
: >> Gary Osbourne stated that this might work reasonably well with two
: >> options, but wouldn't scale if there was a third option.
: >>
: >> Please send your opinions on which form of ballot is appropriate
: >> (and *please* be as exact as possible).
: >>
: >> Best regards,
: >> /// Alexander
: >>
: >> --
: >> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
: >> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
: >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
: >>
:
: --
: This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
: Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
: ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
: Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
:
:
:


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html