Except that we prefer polite, respectful rants.

[X-post!]

I hope this is respectful enough. Please, please, please, anyone who disagrees with my rant, don’t take this personally, because I’m not criticizing you, I’m criticizing the idea. I apologize in advance if anyone is offended; please remember I’m running on lack of sleep here.

Rant: Status Quo if no option gets 50% is a bad idea.

There was some discussion about this Sunday afternoon and yesterday (posts 6968 to 6992) with Lyra Jane, Liese, Sophia, Wolfram, Elena, Jon B, and billytea all making some good points about this, but nobody opposed it vociferously enough for my taste. For me, there’s not enough Hell No in the ‘verse on this issue. I’m not opposed to the idea of Status Quo/No Change/None of the Above, I just think if people want it, it should be an option on the ballot. If the majority of people want status quo, then it will win, if a majority wants some change, any change, status quo should not triumph.

My arguments:

1. The idea gives an almost insurmountable advantage to Status Quo, which is unfair and inconsistent with majority rule. It would be unlikely to get a 50% majority on a ballot with only 3 options, assuming that all 3 are reasonable. As the number of options increases, it’s almost certain that Status Quo will win every time. This is just unfair. Put Status Quo on the ballot and let it fight it out with the other options on an equal, fair basis.

2. What the hell does Status Quo mean anyway? Take the quorum issue. If we have a ballot with 3 or more options for quorum size, and none of these gets more than 50%, what is the Status Quo? We decided we want a quorum but we don’t know what it is? And we maybe have to wait for months before we can vote again on it and we’ll still probably get Status Quo again? We’ll never be able to vote on anything. Also, other people could have different ideas on what None of The Above would mean. Let’s spell out each of these on the ballot and give folks a chance to vote on an explicit statement that corresponds to their idea of None of the Above

For example, suppose we start with the ballot:

Minimum quorum size:
A) 5
B) 10
C) 50

some conceviable additions to the ballot for different interpretations of None of The Above:

D) 1 (I don’t like quorums, 1 buffista vote should be enough to pass)
E) 6 billion (I don’t like voting, make it impossible for anything to pass)
F) Status Quo (we have quorums, but don’t decide what they are)
G) None of the Above (I like quorums, but I don’t like the options on the ballot. I want more options, less options, higher numbers, lower numbers, etc.)

Not all of these may be realistic, but it spells out on the ballot unambiguously what each None of the Above option means, and they can fairly fight it out with the more reasonable options for a majority of votes.

Otherwise, I would suggest that each ballot with 3 or more options would have to state explicitly what would happen if no option get 50%. I think newbies or people who don’t read Bureaucracy would need to have spelled out exactly the consequences of non-majority, since they are probably don’t know “the way we’ve always done things”. Then we’d have endless discussion about what Status Quo means on this particular issue. (violates “keep it simple!”)

3. Putting the Status Quo option(s) on the ballot removes the need for putting the meta-question on the ballot: Do we interpret less than majority on this vote to mean Runoff or Status Quo? I think it will be much simpler (keep it simple!) to have all votes interpreted the same way.

4. Putting Status Quo on the ballot AND letting it win if nothing gets 50% gives Status Quo an even more unfair advantage than in #1. I would hope everyone agrees that this would be unfair.

5. Nearly always the Status Quo-ers get a huge advantage, but in some situations it could backfire on them. Consider this ballot:

Our polling process for thread names has been criticized by some because of ballot stuffing, etc. Should we:

A) Make our own polling app, quicker and less complicated than the formal vote, which eliminates duplicate votes (but still have a plurality win).
B) Use the formal vote process for thread naming (must have majority to win).

At this point the Status Quo-ers lobby to get a third option on the ballot in order to force a non-majority. The new option can’t be Keep the Status Quo (see #4), so they’d come up with another option, say:

C) All new threads are named Monkey Monkey Monkey

with the understanding that all Status Quo-ers would vote for C. Now suppose 51% of Buffistas actually prefer the Status Quo in this case and vote for C. C wins, and we’re stuck with it instead of the Status Quo, which was not the real intent of the majority. I submit that even the monkey lovers would get bored with this.

Again, probably not realistic, but hopefully makes a point.

My conclusion is that majority rule requires a runoff, some kind of runoff. I have an opinion on the type of runoff, but that’s another rant. I think adding Status Quo option(s) to the ballot, when it makes sense, satisfies the needs of the Status Quo-ers, but in a fair manner consistent with majority rule. Also, it allows us to keep it simple, by having ballots with all possible outcomes listed in the options to vote upon, and having only one kind of ballot.

Well, things like minimum quorum size, where some decision has to be made, obviously can't use the "have to get 50%" method. But I don't agree with the "if people don't like the way it is, then some change is better than no change" argument. If there's something that people don't like, and three options for change, and none of them get a majority vote, then I'd think that sometimes that's something where we should look at it some more and see if we can come up with some other option that would get the majority vote (maybe combine two of them somehow, or something), rather than going with something that the majority initially voted against. Not for every vote, of course, but as an option to be used when appropriate.

But I don't agree with the "if people don't like the way it is, then some change is better than no change" argument.

But that's not my argument. I say put "Don't Change Anything" as another option on the ballot. If a majority of people agree, then nothing changes.

I feel mischaracterized. I'm a monkey pants lover, not a lover of the monkey himself.

Just kidding. I think you raise some excellent points. I'd already thought of the 'the more options, the less chance of majority' thing. It's a valid issue.

My support of the no majority/no change option was to avoid the opposite slant. That it would be ridiculously easy for changes to be made to the boards. If we could have one second and five voters turned out, then a majority of three people could effect a change, and how is this different from consensus gained by a small number of people? I realize, yes, this is theoretical, and we've had no shortage of voter turnout so far. So if we oppose a change, we can vote against it, yes. But I would rather have it deliberately difficult to move things, so that we get substantial, meaningful change.

I don't think anyone would suggest putting status quo on the ballot as well as having failure to gain majority result in status quo. If we opt against no majority/no change, then we must put status quo on the ballot where it applies. Otherwise, there would never be a case where status quo would remain, if everything is decided by runoff or preferential voting.

Well, things like minimum quorum size, where some decision has to be made, obviously can't use the "have to get 50%" method.

Sure it can. Do a runoff. We already voted that 50% is required for every vote. That to me means runoff.

But that's not my argument. I say put "Don't Change Anything" as another option on the ballot. If a majority of people agree, then nothing changes.

But my argument is that, in some cases, if we can't agree on how to change, then it's better to stick with what we've got until we can find a change that more people can agree on.

Well, things like minimum quorum size, where some decision has to be made, obviously can't use the "have to get 50%" method.

Sure it can. Do a runoff. We already voted that 50% is required for every vote. That to me means runoff.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was using "have to get 50%" to mean "have to get 50% on first vote," to differentiate it from the various runoff methods.

But my argument is that, in some cases, if we can't agree on how to change, then it's better to stick with what we've got until we can find a change that more people can agree on.

Exactly.

The whole reason we're implementing the voting system is that some people felt that community decisions were being bulldozed through by a relatively small group of people. Therefore, we have to design a system that allows a vote for no change.

If there's something that people don't like, and three options for change, and none of them get a majority vote, then I'd think that sometimes that's something where we should look at it some more and see if we can come up with some other option that would get the majority vote (maybe combine two of them somehow, or something), rather than going with something that the majority initially voted against. Not for every vote, of course, but as an option to be used when appropriate.

In this case, we could add
D) None of the above. A change may be needed but I don't like A, B, or C. Let's discuss it some more and see if we can come up with better options.
E) Status Quo. Don't change it. I like it the way it is.

If D & E together got more votes than A & B & C on the initial vote/1st preference, then the change wouldn't be made, whatever the runoff decided. The majority wins.