Popular Ratification

[kevin_standlee]

A longer version of this post is in a comment over here, but I'll say it here for the record again:

I am in favor of replacing the current system of ratifying changes to the WSFS Constitution (a vote in person at the Business Meeting of the Worldcon following the one where the proposal first passed, with only persons present in person eligible to vote) with what I call Popular Ratification. In my proposal, anything passed by the Year 1 Business Meeting would be submitted to a vote of all of the members, supporting and attending, of the Year 2 Worldcon at the same time as the Hugo Final Ballot. Anyone eligible to vote on the Hugo Final Ballot could vote on the ratification question. Voting would close at the same time as the Hugo Final Ballot (about four weeks pre-Worldcon). The results would be announced at the Year 2 Preliminary Business Meeting, but would not take effect until the end of Year 2 (just like amendments today don't take effect until the end of the Worldcon that ratifies them). Any proposal that gets more yes votes than no votes passes. No quorum. No minimum vote requirements. No voting fees (other than you have to be a member of the current Worldcon to vote).

While I think the regular BM attendees would consider this to be a radical, dangerous proposal, and I'm thus reluctant to work too hard on putting it through the Business Meeting, I also think it would go some way toward cutting the legs out from under the argument that it's "unfair" that members have to be present in person to have any say in the constitutional amendment process.

Aside: I would include as a rider on this particular proposal that it would have to be ratified by both the existing system and by its own process. In other words, it would have to pass in Year 1, be ratified by the Business Meeting in Year 2, then be submitted to the members for vote in Year 3, and if they approve it, it would take effect at the end of year 3. Amendments passed at Year 2 would be subject to ratification in Year 3 by the existing process. Amendments first passed at the Year 3 Business Meeting would be subject to the new process, submitted to the members of Year 4. (You can do this because you know the results of the ratification vote at the start of the Year 3 Business Meeting.)

Cons: This would raise Worldcon administrative costs. It would remove the Year 2 Business Meeting as a "House of Revision" able to reduce the scope of pending amendments; ratification would be strictly up or down. It would still not allow non-attending members to send primary legislation straight to a ratification vote (like the California initiative constitutional amendment process does).

Pros: It would allow non-attending members who already have Hugo voting rights a voice in the process. It would improve the "legitimacy" of WSFS government by removing the requirement of physical presence at a Worldcon Business Meeting at every stage of the process. It would reduce the plausibility of the argument that the entire WSFS governance process in the hands of a "bureaucracy" that never lets "real fans" have a say.

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

That's a public post btw. Happy for you to link.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The post has a lock showing to me when I look at it. I've included the link now.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Ah, for some reason, that link goes to another post I wrote this morning about my business... try deleting it again and recreating it?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Ah, the links are straightened out now. Maybe my browser choked on LJ this morning, but when I reload the pages, everything works this time.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Yes, sometimes there's a weird caching effect that happens. This online stuff. It'll NEVER catch on :)

[daveon.livejournal.com]

So that link is going to my post called "Step 2" which is most definitely not public. The Hugo post was the wrong I wrote earlier this morning... pre-coffee which might explain any lack of clarity.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I clicked on Kevin's link, and got "access is denied".

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Fixed now: http://daveon.livejournal.com/679162.html

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I suspect more things would fail of ratification, just because the group ratifying is different from the group originally passing. And it would cause people concerned with WSFS governance to spend energy finding ways to annoy Worldcon members with WSFS issues :-). All in all that might well be a good thing, either directly or because it pulls the legs out from under the elitist argument.

But it doesn't; the elitist argument is pretty much perfect and self-contained and can't be defeated from the outside, to those really committed to the position.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

As I was saying in my original post, it would need those that are interested in ratification to actual reach out and engage with like minded people attending the convention... of course, that might not happen. But as I don't have a problem with the current system, don't much want to get involved and frankly, don''t care either way, that's not my problem.

My problem is with people complaining they're not involved and then ignoring every single thing people do to try and help them.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and the people who have hermetically-sealed views of their self-imposed victimtude aren't ever going to change. Heck, even if you gave them what they claim to want, they'd still be unhappy. Them I can't please, but I can influence the people who read them and might be inclined to believe their sob stories. But if they then go and discover, "Hey, I can vote just by joining and clicking on a web browser," then the only remaining argument is, "I shouldn't ever have to pay to vote," which is a different issue that can't be addressed logically IMO. (The people who say, "I shouldn't have to pay" implicitly think they own something that they do not own.)

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Yup. Agree. Now that's not to say that some of the points raised haven't been valid and that there aren't improvements, that other people,can make. However, my degree of interest in doing them or being involved is muted because, I suspect, strongly, that valid improvements get made, and the people who don't engage, still don't and still moan that people are out to get them :)

[bovil.livejournal.com]

It depends on the electorate. California state initiatives are statistically likely to result in failures without a massive "yes" campaign. Local education measures in CA, on the other hand, even in conservative districts, are likely to win a popular vote.

I haven't got the pulse of the average Worldcon attendee enough to guess which way the votes would fall. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratification ballots weren't any bigger than business meeting participation. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out there were some odd split of motion types that would tend towards ratification and other types that tended against.

[rono-60103.livejournal.com]

This sounds reasonable.

But it would not make the people who want to keep those of us willing to attend the business meetings in power happy.

It might not make those who feel that they are disenfranchised because they cannot or will not attend the business meetings happy.

Of course, I often define a good compromise as something that makes both sides equally unhappy.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

For those who want the Business Meeting in power, I would say, "Legislation must continue to originate in the Business Meeting. I do not favor amendment by initiative."

For those who feel disenfranchised and want changes, I would say, "When you get a Worldcon close enough to attend — about once a decade on the average — you can get all of your friends to come push through an amendment. Then if your ideas are that good, your proposals will be ratified."

In the end, I believe in democracy and of the right of the members of a society to set their own rules. There are people who say that a society of which they want no part should change to suit them. I don't think I can reach them. But there's sufficiently plausibility in the current situation to influence the fence-sitters.

Agreed about the making everyone equally unhappy. I do consider my proposal a compromise position, which means both the radicals and reactionaries will hate it. That's another reason I'm reluctant to start pushing it through. Trying to carry only the moderates is a challenge.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I would like a simple up-down ratification. Stage-2 tinkering slows down the process and is as likely to create unintended consequences as it is to catch them. It also requires the business meeting chair to make judgement calls on the substativeness of changes.