User talk:SB Johnny/4 options


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Perplexed - I am reluctant to concede that 4 = 5. —Moulton 13:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * . --SB_Johnny talk 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not bad for now. But getting more complicated.
Not bad. There needs to be process for discussing amendments. We allow a lot by allowing complex comments in a voting process. It mixes discussion (deliberation) with amalgamation (estimation of consensus). There are some knotty problems, which is why I think that ultimately we will go to an elected executive committee, and there is a way to do that which accomplishes proportional representation, and flexibility with ad hoc participation. The executive committee will hold "hearings" at which anyone may testify, ordinarily, but controlling results will be decided by executive committee members, informed by the community. If the EC strays too far, safe process would allow rapid revision of Committee membership.

There could even be direct voting, but balanced by representative power. There is a fascinating voting system that was developed by Lewis Carroll, in the 1880s.

For later. The goal of a good system is the optimization of consensus, real consensus, deep consensus, which tends to be self- enforcing, with efficiency. --Abd 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)