Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 22:22:36 GMT -5
The Proposed Steering Committee Process is to give each delegate a certain number of points that they can allocate however they choose among the proposed pre-selected 100 grievances we will be voting on, meaning if each delegate has 25 points, they could give 1 point each to 25 grievances, or they could give 25 points to 1 grievance, provided they can push the button enough times in 30 seconds.
There have been 2 proposed alternatives here:
First, a straight up and down vote that would yield a percent support.
Second a ranking system that would allow the delegates to rank each grievance in terms of importance on some sort of scale. A basic proposed scale might look something like this:
1 - Should Definitely be included, dealbreaker if not included
2 - Support, but not a dealbreaker if not included
3 - Lean toward supporting but needs debate and refinement
4 - Unsure of Support
5 - Have some concerns, lean toward not supporting
6 - Don't support
7 - Don't support, and dealbreaker if included
The benefit of the Steering Committee's proposed weighted point system is that it allows you to emphasize those grievances that are most important to you. The drawback is that a small group of people could decide to put all their votes to one particular grievance, thus catapulting it into one of the top spots even if the majority of delegates do not support it. This could lead to a situation that endangers the entire process and results in no document being ratified. Another drawback to the point system if we are to stick with the Steering Committee agenda and the 100 grievances pre-selected by the committee instead of starting with categories and non-repetitive grievance topics is that numerous grievances covering the same topic will compete with each other for points.
The benefit of a straight up and down vote is that it is simple, and it gives everyone an idea of the overall support for each grievance without the weighted skew, which will not be part of the final vote anyway.
The benefit of using a scale is that it would give more information than a straight up and down vote, would give delegates the opportunity to weight their votes to some degree, and could still be used to determine baseline support and a straight up or down percentage. On the scale described above, each grievance would end up with an average score (i.e. 1.6 or 3.5) that could then be ranked, and the straight up and down support could be calculated by considering 1, 2 or 3 a "Yes" vote, 5, 6 or 7 a "No" vote, and 4 "Undecided"
There have been 2 proposed alternatives here:
First, a straight up and down vote that would yield a percent support.
Second a ranking system that would allow the delegates to rank each grievance in terms of importance on some sort of scale. A basic proposed scale might look something like this:
1 - Should Definitely be included, dealbreaker if not included
2 - Support, but not a dealbreaker if not included
3 - Lean toward supporting but needs debate and refinement
4 - Unsure of Support
5 - Have some concerns, lean toward not supporting
6 - Don't support
7 - Don't support, and dealbreaker if included
The benefit of the Steering Committee's proposed weighted point system is that it allows you to emphasize those grievances that are most important to you. The drawback is that a small group of people could decide to put all their votes to one particular grievance, thus catapulting it into one of the top spots even if the majority of delegates do not support it. This could lead to a situation that endangers the entire process and results in no document being ratified. Another drawback to the point system if we are to stick with the Steering Committee agenda and the 100 grievances pre-selected by the committee instead of starting with categories and non-repetitive grievance topics is that numerous grievances covering the same topic will compete with each other for points.
The benefit of a straight up and down vote is that it is simple, and it gives everyone an idea of the overall support for each grievance without the weighted skew, which will not be part of the final vote anyway.
The benefit of using a scale is that it would give more information than a straight up and down vote, would give delegates the opportunity to weight their votes to some degree, and could still be used to determine baseline support and a straight up or down percentage. On the scale described above, each grievance would end up with an average score (i.e. 1.6 or 3.5) that could then be ranked, and the straight up and down support could be calculated by considering 1, 2 or 3 a "Yes" vote, 5, 6 or 7 a "No" vote, and 4 "Undecided"