Mechanics of the vote(s) for amendments to Reduce CBA passage requirements?

[Colin McMillen]

"Amendments 18A1.2-4 (Chris Beland, Ashish Shrestha) reduce the threshold to pass a CBA, from the current ⅔ majority to 60%, 55%, or 50%."

Without debating the merits of the proposals themselves:

How will this vote work in practice? I assume that each potential amendment (to change the threshold from 2/3 to XX%) is a separate up-or-down vote. If multiple of them succeed, which one "wins"? We can't simultaneously amend the bylaws to change the number to 50%, and also change it to 60%.

If two or three of them pass, does that mean we automatically go with the one that is least restrictive (i.e. lowest percentage required), or the one that passed by the highest margin (in which case we will need a detailed count for every individual proposal), or will there be some potential "runoff" process in which people explicitly vote for which they prefer out of the 2 or three "passing" options?

My preference would be for a "runoff" between competing options, because if "the highest margin one wins" then there's a significant incentive for strategic voting. (For example, if my true preference is "50%" but I would be fine with 55% or 60%, I'm still motivated to vote "no" on 55% and 60% if only the one with the highest margin of support wins. And vice versa for people who think that 55% or 60% is the "right" amount but would be happier with 50% than the current 67%, etc.)

Colin

[David Booth]

I think that problem can be avoided well enough:

- Prior to voting up or down on any specific percentage, votes could
be held to determine which percentage is most popular. Then, a binding
up-or-down vote on that percentage could be taken.

- If a motion to adopt one percentage passed, then I think the
membership would realize that it would be nonsensical for the membership
to pass a motion to *also* adopt a different percentage, so I doubt it
would happen.

In the worst case, if a non-truly-preferred percentage were to pass, a
future by-laws amendment could be proposed to replace it with a better one.

David Booth

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/c784aadc-8f92-481e-bba9-d18a0c500984%40app.fastmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/c784aadc-8f92-481e-
> bba9-d18a0c500984%40app.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Derrick Rice]

Jumping in as one of the volunteers from the bylaws working group, where we discussed this. Also, I think this will be described when we take the item up in the meeting.

Whatever amendment is approved last will prevail, since it amends the bylaws including whatever changes might have just immediately preceded it. By introducing these in the correct order, we help to find the "settling point" where there's membership approval.

The current threshold is 2/3, so all amendments reduce the threshold. Therefore, the intention is to vote on the amendments in order of least change (60%) to greater change (55% then 50%). The intention is that people in favor of (e.g.) 50%, would vote in favor of reducing from 2/3 to 60%, then again in favor of reducing 60% to 55%, then again in favor of reducing from 55% to 50%.

While this is more voting (which can be annoying), it provides flexibility for membership to decide what the value should be. A reasonable expectation is that if 55% fails, then 50% would almost certainly fail.

- Derrick Rice (he/him)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/6f61d70d-55cf-4cd7-a194-28cca25d6cbf%40dbooth.org.

[Elaine Almquist]

I agree with Derrick that this is the best solution to order this particular grouping of proposed amendments.

Best,

Elaine

Elaine F. Almquist

(she/her/hers)

BlueSky @EAlmquist  Instagram: @EFAlmquist
Phone: 978.375.2448

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/89881e14-ef20-4a91-a96f-54285b5fa934%40app.fastmail.com.

[Colin McMillen]

Thanks for the explanation, that makes perfect sense.

Best,

Coln

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAEK62JecczfRP_UuJ3Ax91V_J%2BbLtKB65G3Ssh_QbPXxmX0%3DSw%40mail.gmail.com.