kevin_standlee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2007-01-04 12:19 pm
kevin_standlee) wrote2007-01-04 12:19 pm
Entry tags:
Range Voting
The folks advocating Range Voting contacted WSFS (actually, the WSFS webmaster, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."
I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
no subject
no subject
no subject
You: Procrustean evangelist who does not do work necessary to put on Worldcon or any other science fiction convention.
Us: The volunteers who actually put up our labor and money to put on science fiction conventions.
Now who's opinion of what needs to be our highest priority do you think will carry more weight? Particularly since you're unwilling to even work up a proposal, you just want us to study your tracts and then work at coming up with a way to implement Range Voting at Worldcon.
no subject
Us: The volunteers who actually put up our labor and money to put on science fiction conventions.
You: People who are supposedly rational enough to do something that is in your own best interest.
Am I wrong?
since you're unwilling to even work up a proposal, you just want us to study your tracts and then work at coming up with a way to implement Range Voting at Worldcon.
The point isn't what I want you to do. The point is, you should want you to do this. I would be happy to help you draft a proposal, if you would decide to push for this. I would offer any academic resources possible.
no subject
no subject