Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #88
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 23 2000            Volume 01 : Number 088

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:10:47 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

At 19:22 21.06.2000 +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>STV is described in the voting systems of most civilized nations and it
>should be easy to crib from, say, the German (or Norwegian???)
>constiution....

we don't use it - we use party lists, personal votes and proportional 
representation.
So do most civilized countries, apart from the US, UK and Australia, 
apparently :-)

              Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:37:42 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

At 01:14 22.06.2000 -0400, George Kougias wrote:
>If after three or four votes, no candidate has a
>majority of 2/3 of the vote then the candidate with the majority of
>votes wins the seat.

note that with a week per vote, you have a system that uses approximately a 
month to make a decision.
Robert's Rules were written for the case where you don't let the people out 
of the room until the votes have converged.

                Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:10:26 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voting rules: reinventing the wheel

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------20920A7C0F04710342174CB0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 01:14 22.06.2000 -0400, George Kougias wrote:
> >If after three or four votes, no candidate has a
> >majority of 2/3 of the vote then the candidate with the majority of
> >votes wins the seat.
>
> note that with a week per vote, you have a system that uses approximately a
> month to make a decision.
> Robert's Rules were written for the case where you don't let the people out
> of the room until the votes have converged.

Question:

Are we working on a problem for which there is an already invented wheel?

What is your analysis of Instant Run-off Voting (IRV)?

- --------------20920A7C0F04710342174CB0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.814.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
end:vcard

- --------------20920A7C0F04710342174CB0--

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

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:23:35 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------FA9978116461995FD2A15A5C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> we use...proportional representation.
>

Could that be used by the GA?

- --------------FA9978116461995FD2A15A5C
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.814.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
end:vcard

- --------------FA9978116461995FD2A15A5C--

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

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:56:27 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 09:10:47AM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 19:22 21.06.2000 +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >STV is described in the voting systems of most civilized nations and it
> >should be easy to crib from, say, the German (or Norwegian???)
> >constiution....
> 
> we don't use it - we use party lists, personal votes and proportional 
> representation.
> So do most civilized countries, apart from the US, UK and Australia, 
> apparently :-)

Gee, you know, I looked in vain for a description of STV in the US
constitution.  But the US is populated by uncultured barbarians, anyway 
- -- you will have to look elsewhere for civilization.

More seriously, I am struck by the utter absurdity of this conversation. 
I know that there are many who would like to see a world government
here, but, objectively speaking, the ga is basically an informal mailing
list, and a relatively small one at that.  If we were packed in a room
almost certainly we would just use a show of hands to vote, with a very
simple decision rule to evaluate the results.  Maybe, in extreme
circumstances, we might pass a hat around and collect scraps of paper
with various people's names on them. 

Under other circumstances it might be fun to continue this as an academic 
exercise in self-governance, but from a practical point of view that would 
be silly. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:49:19 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------16F8A370BCA9EADB4F70E9AF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kent Crispin wrote:

< ...I am struck by the utter absurdity of this conversation.

"Absurdity" is a rather extreme characterization for discussing the process by
which our decisions are made.  And, making that characterization is a
questionable method of analyzing and resolving an issue placed upon the table
by an officer of this assembly; about which we are going to vote;  and for
which there is no default answer.  In short, it is demonstratively disruptive.

The real absurdity is demonstrably this:  that one who believes the
conversation is absurd should participate and try to affect its outcome.

> I know that there are many who would like to see a world government
> here, but, objectively speaking, the ga is basically an informal mailing
> list, and a relatively small one at that.  If we were packed in a room
> almost certainly we would just use a show of hands to vote, with a very
> simple decision rule to evaluate the results.  Maybe, in extreme
> circumstances, we might pass a hat around and collect scraps of paper
> with various people's names on them.

Either we are here for serious business or we are wasting our time.  If it is
serious, we should not be derided for conducting our process, accordingly.  If
it is meaningless, the General Assembly, itself, should be terminated.  But,
that is not the proposition we are discussing.

> Under other circumstances it might be fun to continue this as an academic
> exercise in self-governance, but from a practical point of view that would
> be silly.

Therefore, we should do what?  There is no process in place.  We are now
seeking motions and seconds for proposals upon which we may vote.  How do you
suggest we skip that procedure?

- --------------16F8A370BCA9EADB4F70E9AF
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.814.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
end:vcard

- --------------16F8A370BCA9EADB4F70E9AF--

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

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:50:22 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 12:49:19PM -0500, Weisberg wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> < ...I am struck by the utter absurdity of this conversation.
> 
> "Absurdity" is a rather extreme characterization for discussing the process by
> which our decisions are made.

s/extreme/accurate/

>  And, making that characterization is a
> questionable method of analyzing and resolving an issue placed upon the 
> table by an officer of this assembly; about which we are going to vote;  
> and for which there is no default answer.

There is indeed a default answer.  From Harald's original post:

    2/3 majority required to win, since it's a rule introduction.  Does
    this seem uncontroversial? If so - let's vote on it!

> In short, it is demonstratively disruptive.

In my opinion the disruption is from those who wish to endlessly
elaborate because things aren't just perfect.  Harald put a matter on
the table, a matter which had been open for weeks with nary a peep from 
anyone... 

> The real absurdity is demonstrably this:  that one who believes the
> conversation is absurd should participate and try to affect its outcome.

Don't be silly.  I am branding the conversation as absurd precisely
because I would like it to terminate.

> > I know that there are many who would like to see a world government
> > here, but, objectively speaking, the ga is basically an informal mailing
> > list, and a relatively small one at that.  If we were packed in a room
> > almost certainly we would just use a show of hands to vote, with a very
> > simple decision rule to evaluate the results.  Maybe, in extreme
> > circumstances, we might pass a hat around and collect scraps of paper
> > with various people's names on them.
> 
> Either we are here for serious business or we are wasting our time.

Indeed.  Endless debate about process is precisely "wasting time".

[...]

> Therefore, we should do what?

Vote on Harald's proposition.

> There is no process in place.  We are now
> seeking motions and seconds for proposals upon which we may vote.

I move that we vote on Harald's proposal.

> How do you
> suggest we skip that procedure?

How could we skip it? Do what you are doing -- engage in endless
discussions about the perfect voting procedure.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:30:46 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

At 08:23 22.06.2000 -0500, Weisberg wrote:
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > we use...proportional representation.
> >
>
>Could that be used by the GA?
only if the GA wants to establish the equivalent of politicial parties.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:55:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I move that we vote on Harald's proposal.
>
I second it.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:43:02 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

At 09:55 23.06.2000 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

>Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > I move that we vote on Harald's proposal.
> >
>I second it.
hey - before we go to the vote, could I propose an amended version?
I think we want 2/3 approval on this vote (rule change), and it would be a
shame if those who think the rules for complex elections are wrong would 
vote against it on that basis, leaving us with nothing.

I'll ship an amended version that says:

- - this is for single-outcome votes only, other kinds of votes will be
   addressed later
- - if no alternative gets enough votes to be accepted, the vote is termed
   inconclusive, and the chair may issue a new ballot.
- - the threshold is 1/2 for ordinary votes, 2/3 for rule changes

OK?

              Harald
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:48:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

> 
> At 09:55 23.06.2000 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> 
> >Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I move that we vote on Harald's proposal.
> > >
> >I second it.
> hey - before we go to the vote, could I propose an amended version?
> I think we want 2/3 approval on this vote (rule change), and it would be a
> shame if those who think the rules for complex elections are wrong would 
> vote against it on that basis, leaving us with nothing.
> 
> I'll ship an amended version that says:
> 
> - this is for single-outcome votes only, other kinds of votes will be
>    addressed later
> - if no alternative gets enough votes to be accepted, the vote is termed
>    inconclusive, and the chair may issue a new ballot.
> - the threshold is 1/2 for ordinary votes, 2/3 for rule changes
> 
> OK?
> 
==> OK. It is fair.
    Elisabeth Porteneuve

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

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #88
***********************