SUO: *Date 24 Jan 2002
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Item. Gathering Questions
I am done with this issue, at least for the time being.
Whatever happens from this point on I will just have to
chalk up to experience. Here are my present conclusions,
everything I say of course being in the nature of my own
personal standpoint.
1. As I understand it, the specific SUMO motion has failed.
2. The IEEE ruling on the more general question of what
constitutes a majority makes good common sense to me.
3. The reason that it makes sense to me I can explain as follows:
The following are common sense dictionary definitions
of "majority", "majority rule", and "plurality", that
have the advantage of being stated in generality, and
not contingent on the peculiar assumptions that RROO
makes with regard to old-time synchronous assemblies:
| majority. 3.a. a number greater than half of a total.
|
| majority rule. a political principle providing that a
| majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one
| of an organized group will have the power to make
| decisions binding upon the whole.
|
| plurality. 3.a. a number greater than another.
| 3.b. an excess of votes over those
| cast for an opposing candidate.
| 3.c. a number of votes cast for a candidate
| in a contest of more than two candidates
| that is greater than the number cast for
| any other candidate but not more than half
| the total votes cast.
|
| Source: 'Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary'
I understand that a vote on a motion is different than
a head to head contest among competing candidates, but
it is not between "doing something" and "doing nothing".
If it were merely a matter of voting to admit some piece
of work for serious group consideration, I would probably
always vote "yes, what the heck", but that is not how the
issue has been cast. Again, a comparison with hypothesis
testing comes to mind. It is not a substantive proposal
against a null proposal -- it has been cast in a rather
forceful way to be a contest of one proposal against
all alternative proposals for action and discussion.
I wish that it were not this way, but I'm not the
party who has pressed the issue into this mold.
So the proposal in question is correspondingly
forced to meet a stronger test. Here, the
principle of majority rule is eloquent in
elaborating "the heart of the matter":
| majority rule. a political principle providing that a
| majority usually constituted by fifty percent plus one
| of an organized group will have the power to make
| decisions binding upon the whole.
"Decisions binding upon the whole" -- there's the nub of it.
Now consider the statement of John Dickert:
| I am slightly appalled by the turn of events.
|
| I felt that an abstention was to serve as a notice
| of interest in the procedure with a willingness to
| go along with the plurality vote of the others.
|
| I see the need to vote as a requirement for showing
| interest in the process.
|
| I see a need for showing interest without committing
| to the decision, or, at least, accepting either decision.
|
| I don't like the insinuation that an abstention
| becomes interpreted as a no vote.
I agree whole-heartedly with this, except for the fact that I would
have to substitute "majority" for "plurality" in the second sentence:
| I feel that an abstention is to serve as a notice
| of interest in the procedure with a willingness to
| go along with the majority vote of the others.
For my part, there are times when I am concerned but doubtful about
whether a specific course of action "binding upon the whole" should
be taken. But I am willing to have faith in the greater experience
and wisdom of the whole community, on the condition that it express
itself with clarity and resolve. In this light, it is not rational
to accede to a plurality opinion, since that could be a single vote
"full of passionate intensity" in seas of fellow conviction lackers.
The IEEE decision quite correctly recognizes the utter absurdity
of making a "decision binding upon the whole" in just such a way.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤