Christopher M Tucker
Guest
|
Post by Christopher M Tucker on Jun 12, 2012 4:05:04 GMT -5
I haven't fully thought this thru, but it struck me as a simple, superior voting procedure (assuming CC2 exists & people show up & current renamed SC isn't intent on ramming crap up our hoohoo's).
1) Presentation of G's before & at conference 2) Discussion/debate 3) Series of 10 votes, w/ 1st being #1 pick as if only 1 G would be listed. Next, vote on #2 G, w/ top vote-getter added, repeat.
This could be done w/ hand-vote & focuses concentration on delegates' preerance ranking.
In sum, delegates read thru 100 proposals, either go right to voting for top 1, then 2, then 3, and see what top 10 are.
Then debate/discussion to correct mistakes. Redo vote top #1, 2, 3, etc.
As I see it, we should see descending levels of support until # 10/
Of course, this is merely academic exercise, if CC2 had ceased to exist.
-Chris Tucker (MN-Delegate 3)
p.s. Miracle voting procedure was just hyperbolic attention getting
|
|