On 19 Mar 2014, at 10:29, Jasper Wallace <jas...@pointless.net> wrote:
P.S. Anyone know what the status of one-click-orgs is?
core power users, occasional visitors, and sleepers
Yeah, welcome to 'democracy' where professor has the same amount of votes as street junkie :)core power users, occasional visitors, and sleepers
In the United Kingdom, for example, up to 1948, people affiliated with a university were allowed vote in both a university constituency and their home constituency, and property owners could vote both in the constituency where their property lay and that in which they lived, if the two were different.
welcome to 'democracy'
that anyone paying the minimum membership shouldn't get to vote either.
The problem with the word "democracy" is that in most people's experience, it comes down to questions proposed and framed by incumbents and where the result is simply a yes or no (and for some elections, try again). These votes are based on totals and with no nuance, and IMO massively disempowering.
I think that voting on Loomio, if we use it, should be used as a measure of consensus and no more. An online show of hands, perhaps.
If we end up with anything like a split vote, blockers on each side, or vetos against the majority, it's obvious consensus hasn't been reached. This allows us to follow our current system of waiting for objections and people changing positions based on new arguments. Loomio seems to work fairly well for that - I'd just like to see what happens when a discussion gets longer.
I agree it'd be good to experiment with, and see if we can find a way to weight things to make it fair...
Current problems with mailing list consensus are:-
We can't always verify that someone is a member as we allow people to use pseudonyms and allow non-members on the list.
The same few people go "yes that's fine" to everything, if we could limit the number of issues you could vote for then people would only use them on things they actually care about...
Long term members normally have a better idea of what is going on, so either have a number of votes for the number of years you've been a member, or don't allow people to vote until they've been a member for a year or so.
All the hippies hate the money debate, but I'll also say that anyone paying the minimum membership shouldn't get to vote either.
Trustees normally have the final say anyway, so why not make this official and make their vote worth more.
You're missing the point. The critical point is that you think the election is about the issues, but you are only being asked the question about which representative.
Until you get direct voting on the issues, its not a democracy.
Why not just try it and see if it's helpful ? What is there to lose?