09 May 1998: Change of the voting procedures
From: Robert Felton <swinny@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Date: 9 May 1998 02:45:13 +0100
Subject: Amended Results of Changes to the voting system CFV
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.management
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
Summary: Changes to the voting system
PROPOSAL 1 Addition of ROD PASSES 56:10
PROPOASL 2 Including status quo mandatory PASSES 63:3
PORPOSAL 3 Use of the Condorcet System PASSES 46:17
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST, 28 April 1998.
Proponent: pb10003@cam.ac.uk (Paul Bolchover)
Votetaker: votequestion@swinny.cix.co.uk (Rob Felton)
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution:
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.net.news.management
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Results:
The results follow below, with the Rationale and the changes to the
Guidelines beneath them for informational purposes.
PROPOSAL 1 - Addition of ROD
YES = 56
NO = 10
ABSTAIN = 6
YES beat NO by a majority of 46 votes, this is more than the +12
majority required to beat the status quo.
PROPOSAL 2 - Including status quo mandatory
YES = 63
NO = 3
ABSTAIN = 6
YES beat NO by a majority of 60 votes, this is more than the +12
majority required to beat the status quo.
PROPOSAL 3 - Use of the Condorcet System
YES = 46
NO = 17
ABSTAIN = 9
YES beat NO by a majority of 29 votes, this is more than the +12
majority required to beat the status quo.
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Particulars of the Vote
PROPOASL
NB Abs = Abstain 1 2 3
Malcolm Mladenovic mbmatacmorg Abs Yes No
Chris Ritson C.R.Ritsonatncl,acuk Yes Yes Abs
Leo leoatventurer.demon,couk Yes Abs Yes
Charles Bryant cond.vote.chatchch.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Chris Keen voteataimless.demon,couk No Yes No
Rowland Carson rowilatclara.net Yes Yes Yes
Neil P Chue Hong npchattardis.ed,acuk Yes Yes Abs
Kevin Bracey kbraceyatacorn,couk Yes Yes Yes
Martin Biddiscombe M.Biddiscombeatucl,acuk No Yes Yes
Dave Spencer datdsds.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Pekka P. Pirinen pppatpirinen.demon,couk No Yes Yes
John Line jml4atcus.cam,acuk Yes Yes Yes
Tim Sharrock tjsharrockatiee.org Yes Yes Yes
Pete Humble peetatdircon,couk Yes Yes No
William Boughton billatxencat.demon,couk Abs Yes Yes
Duncan Dewar duncanatdewar.softnet,couk Yes Yes Yes
Ian Clifton ianatmelvin.dp.ox,acuk Yes Yes Yes
Richard Clayton richardatturnpike.com Yes Yes Abs
John Robinson johnatthebeard.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
NF Stevens normanatarcady.u-net.com Yes Yes Yes
Angus Gulliver AGULLIVERatprodigy.net Yes Yes Abs
Rick Martin rick.martinatpixel-group.com Abs Yes No
Christopher Watkins christopheratuffa.demon,couk Abs Abs No
Mike mikeatemgee.demon,couk Yes Yes No
Ken Piper piper-kjatpiper-kj.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Iain Bowen iainatharlech.demon,couk Yes Yes No
Colin Cockerill colincatbtinternet.com No Yes Yes
David M. Bloor davidatbloor.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Richard Gadsden richardattga.u-net.com Yes Yes Yes
Peter Corlett abuseatverrine.demon,couk Yes Yes No
Tony Towers satatsystematic,couk Yes Yes Yes
Dave Williams daveatdemon.net Yes Yes No
Rob Alexander robatmhairi.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Jonathan Wheeler J.F.Wheeleratrl,acuk Yes No Abs
Steve Inglis Singlisatbcde.demon,couk Yes Abs No
jon ivar skullerud jonivaratph.ed,acuk No Abs Yes
Alex Holden alexhatclara.net Yes Yes Yes
Sarah Baker sarahatsimple-signshop.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
David Jones djonesatborve.demon,couk No Yes Abs
Peter Parry Peteratwppltd.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Arwel Parry arwelatcartref.demon,couk Yes Yes No
Tobias Erle torexatsnafu.de Yes Yes Yes
Roger Chapman r.chapmanatzetnet,couk Yes Yes Yes
Peter Bell peteratbell.demon,couk Yes Yes No
Simon Gray simonatstar-one.org.uk Yes Yes No
Thomas Lee tflatpsp,couk Yes Yes Yes
Richard Ashton richardatcorixia.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Chris M Dickson chrisatdickson.demon,couk Yes Abs Yes
Christopher Dearlove chrisatmnemosyne.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Charles Lindsey chlatclw.cs.man,acuk Yes Yes Yes
Julie Brandon julieatmerp.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Paul Bolchover pb10003atcus.cam,acuk Yes Yes Yes
David Damerell damerellatchiark.greenend.org.uk Yes Yes Yes
Neil Fernandez ncfatborve.demon,couk No Yes Abs
Alex D. Baxter a.baxteratic,acuk No Yes Yes
Aidan Folkes af67Yes5atbristol,acuk Yes Yes Yes
Dave Mayall mayalldatpostoffice,couk Abs Yes Yes
Tony Walton tony.waltonatsun,couk Yes No Yes
Dave Sparks Dave.Sparksatsisyphus.demon,couk No Yes Yes
James Lawson chasmatccl4.org No Yes No
Claire Speed c.speedatmcc,acuk Yes Yes No
Dan Glover danatdangl.demon,couk Yes Yes No
Nigel Riley NigeRileyataolcom Yes Yes Yes
Andy Mabbett amabbettatbham-assist.demon,couk Abs Abs Abs
Steven Clarke steven.clarkeatmonmouth.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Lyn Thomas lynatstuffing.demon,couk Yes No No
Terry Phillips Terryphiataolcom Yes Yes Yes
Neil Irving neilatneilirving.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Jim Hill jimatjh-c.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Lesley Simpson news1atcorwyn.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Fred Barber fredbatfrolix8.demon,couk Yes Yes Yes
Darren Meldrum darrenatmeldrum,couk Yes Yes Abs
Invalid Votes
No Name or Address on ballot paper (or both)
James Nash J.Nashatmdx,acuk
Joseph Otten joe.ottenatvirgin.net
Mark Brown broonieattardis.ed,acuk
Alan Fleming afatcontract,couk
Spoilt ballot paper
Hilde Fernandez hildeatborve.demon,couk
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale:
Recent results have brought to people's attention the fact that the
current guidelines on the 12-vote majority rule are ambiguous when applied
to ballots with multiple options.
Previous RFDs have suggested various systems to resolve this issue, and
after several straw polls, the majority of people seem to prefer a form
of Condorcet.
There have also been substational support for the inclusion of a "Reopen
Discussion" option to be on the ballot paper, so that if a group were
objected to purely on naming issues, a further RFD may be issued without
waiting for 3 months to pass.
This CFV also includes a further proposal to ensure that the status quo,
should it exist, must go on the ballot paper.
Description of Rationale:
Recent results have brought to people's attention the fact that the
current guidelines on the 12-vote majority rule are ambiguous when applied
to ballots with multiple options.
Previous RFDs have suggested various systems to resolve this issue, and
after several straw polls, the majority of people seem to prefer a form
of Condorcet.
There have also been substational support for the inclusion of a "Reopen
Discussion" option to be on the ballot paper, so that if a group were
objected to purely on naming issues, a further RFD may be issued without
waiting for 3 months to pass.
This CFV also includes a further proposal to ensure that the status quo,
should it exist, must go on the ballot paper.
Description of Condorcet System:
The voter ranks each of the options (including the status quo and ROD)
in order. For each pair of options, the vote-taker calculates the
difference between the number of people who placed option A above option
B and vice versa. First, all options are discarded if they do not have a
majority of at least 12 votes versus the status quo. Out of these
options, the winning one is the one which is preferred to each of the
others. Should there not be such an option (i.e. there is a "top set"),
then discussion is reopened.
PROPOSALS:
All these proposals are for changes to the document "Voting Procedures
within the UK Hierarchy".
Those sections in <<angle brackets>> are to included if proposal 1
succeeds, those section in {{curly brackets}} are to included if
proposal 1 fails.
Proposal 1: [Addition of ROD]
In the section "the vote" add the following paragraph:
"8) When a vote calls for a choice between several mutually exclusive
options, an alternative "Reopen Discussion" (ROD) option must be
included. Additionally, this option shall be included in any ballot
should the committee so request, or if 4 or more people so petition
during the RFD stage. If ROD succeeds, the proponent should issue a new
RFD containing further options. The ROD option shall not be offered
after the second distinct vote on any one proposal."
Proposal 2: [Making the inclusion of the status quo mandatory]
In the section "the vote", append the following to paragraph 1:
"Should a status quo for the proposal exist, the voter must be given the
opportunity to vote for it, either by voting explicitly for the status
quo or by voting against the proposal."
Proposal 3: [Use of the Condorcet System]
In the section "the vote", delete the last sentence of paragraph 7 and
add the following paragraph:
"9) For a vote between several mutually exclusive options, the voters
shall be asked to indicate their relative preference amongst the given
options, which shall include the status quo (if one exists)<< and may
include "Reopen Discussion" (ROD)>>. It is permitted to give the same
preference level to more than one option; voters should be encouraged to
ascribe some preference level to each option."
In the section "the result" insert the following paragraph and renumber
the following one.
"4) For a vote between several mutually exclusive options, the
vote-taker will establish, for each possible pair of options A and B,
how many voters prefer A over B and vice versa. All options which are
not preferred to the status quo (if present) by the required margin are
eliminated. If this eliminates all options, then the status quo shall
prevail. The option which is accepted is the one remaining option which
is not outvoted by any other (if there are two or more such options, the
tie shall be resolved by lot). If there is no absolute preferred
candidate of those remaining, <<the result shall be as if ROD were
successful>>{{a further RFD may be issued by the proponent}}.":
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Votetakers Notes:
15 votes were missed when the original results were compiled and so have
now been added, this was 13 new votes and two people votes amended from a
second vote. I apologise for these votes being missed and has identified a
weakness within my processing system which I have now changed to remove
this weakness.
Comments on the exclusion of the spoilt paper are stated within the
uk.net.news.management newsgroup and not suitable for this section.
It seems certain people still do not clearly read the statements from
UKVoting or the Voting Instructions, and so four votes are wasted due to
the name or email address not being provided.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on CFVs in
the uk hierarchy. The rules under which this vote is taken are posted
regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the following URL:
ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting
The UKVoting web pages can be found at http://www.cirra.com/ukvoting/
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted to
uk.net.news.announce.
Allegations of irregularity should be sent to control@usenet.org.uk.
Thanks
Swinny - Rob Felton
Deputy Co-Ordinator, UKVoting
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAgUBNVO1G2OfGXkh8vHZAQFx8QP+LM4widTAE53G2ljzEBIoo7fylU9QhGom
PoR7Fuq8fmpVw3cVsnnFfU5Kg3mvtyIM1B5IDnGFqz5ccRGMKc80sD+Ux/8h30sR
Fal+Sv4km6Lsgq3XRuSFqA8oNkcviDlotoBcAgTpEmmI85cVgZrZgFjcdMVtVDPD
PIR+pFQZW54=
=xvtX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
