"Fair" Versus "I Win"

[kevin_standlee]

Repeating something from my Guide to the WSFS Business Meeting that is critically important to me:

Remember that “fair” doesn’t always mean “I get what I personally wanted.” It’s a deliberative assembly run in a democratic manner. That means that sometimes you don’t win, but it does mean that you and everyone else has to play by the same rules.

Comments

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

That could be posted on the doors to the Business Meeting.

[jamesonquinn.livejournal.com]

Hi, I'm a creepy stalker casual SF/fantasy fan but heavy voting systems geek. I saw that you're going to be running this years' business meeting. I'm sure there will be a number of proposals relating to changing the voting system for choosing nominees. I'm not here to take sides on which is best; though of course I have an opinion, this is not the place. I'm just going to offer a suggestion about how to deal with those multiple conflicting proposals.

First, imagine how it would go using normal parliamentary process. Somebody offers a motion to change the voting system for 2017. A few amendments are offered and voted on, then the motion comes up for a vote. Say it passes with 60%. Then somebody offers another motion to make some other change. The second one is voted on. Say it passes with 55%. Now the second motion just superceded the first, even though it got fewer votes. Obviously, you could untangle the mess in 2016, but wouldn't it be better not to make the mess in the first place?

So, here's my suggestion: use approval voting. Before bringing up any nomination voting change as a formal motion, have a motion to:

- Gather all the proposals which involve a change in the way the votes are cast and/or counted. This does not include proposals relating to changes in voter eligibility; that's related, but separate.

- Discuss them all, one at a time.

- Then have a straw poll, in which each person can provisionally vote yes or no on each proposal separately.

- Dismiss all but the top vote-getting motion.

- Vote up or down on the top motion.

That way, the order in which the motions are brought up is not what determines which one wins at the end.

If you want to talk more about this idea, feel free to email me at my username at gmail.

[mneme]

A live (realtime, not necessarily in person, although WSFS is, in fact, in-person only) vote IMO makes this unnecessary. If 60% approved an ammendment, but 55% approved an ammendment that superceded it, that means that 55% (which inevitably included some of those 60%, unless there were lots of abstentions) preferred the second amendment to the first.

WSFS does (IIRC) occasionally decide on conflicting proposals via an approval vote -- but it isn't necessary, just sometimes simpler. Regardless of the order, if you have a vote for ammendment A, then B, then C, the ones voting for C if A passed but B failed will only be those who preferred C to A (independent of B). If instead you have C, then B, then A (and C fails) this will affect the number voting for A, as those who are happy with C will refrain from voting for further ammendment.

[rogers cadenhead (from livejournal.com)]

Perhaps we should tackle this problem first by taking away the argument that slate voting is within the rules.

For instance: "3.7.4: Members should not vote for nominations by copying any slate of nominees suggested by others, but instead should make their own individual choices for what they believe are the best works."

This would make it official that the membership opposes bloc voting. Anyone acting in good faith would honor this rule, and if a slate was proposed people could point to the WSFS Constitution to show that it is not allowed. There would be some social pressure on anyone who tried to encourage people to break this rule by promoting a slate.

At that point the problem becomes how to stop people acting in bad faith, but maybe that's not as big a problem as it appears. The Hugos operated for decades without attempts to game the entire ballot, even though the strategic value of doing so was obvious.

[mneme]

The problem is that it's an unenforceable prohibition and would lead to exactly the same escalation we've seen -- of aggrieved parties deciding it's fine to do something because they've seen others (they believed) do it without penalty so it's now fine for them to do it (only, without the lip-service to the rules and customs that made the other not cross an important line).

We can't rule out giving weight to someone else's opinion. -Everyone- does that except those currently living in skinner boxes.

We can't enforce a rule that says that you have to have made an attempt to read/watch/hear everything on a ballot in order to vote, or that you have read/watched/heard everything you nominate for, because people can always lie.

We can have a non-binding resolution of WSFS stating that WSFS opposes bloc voting and does not think it should be encouraged, I guess, if a majority supports it.