Re: P1788/M0024.03:RoundedOperations: PLEASE VOTE
I could refrain from partial tallies. However, since all votes are public, anyone CAN keep their own tally. My though is that multiple talliers is a waste of resources (as long as you trust my counting), so there is no need for anyone else to do so.
Our By-Laws do not say anything about partial tallies; they are my initiative. If there are even a few people who think partial tallies hurt, I will be HAPPY to stop compiling them.
I get your point, but I note that so far, only one motion has failed for lack of a quorum. Most votes seem to experience a late flurry of voting. I hope people hoping that the motion won't pass will let their voices be heard.
George
On Jul 19, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Michel Hack wrote:
>> In Wisconsin last February, ...
>
> I remember... but my point was not so much about the tactic of
> preventing a quorum -- it was about the fact that NO votes can
> be effective YES votes when they lead to a quorum. (These are
> of course related issues.)
>
> Ideally a NO vote should REDUCE the probability of passing,
> just as a YES vote should increase that probability.
>
> At this point, people hoping that the motion won't pass can simply
> sit back and hope nobody else votes (either way). Of course, that
> hope could be dashed by a few late votes. If it were known that
> there there are many potential NO voters, they could avoid that
> calamity by voting en masse to drown out the early YES votes --
> but if they fail to reach that point by the cutoff date they will
> effectively have voted YES (because quorum will have been reached).
>
> Let's assume that among all potential voters there is a fixed
> proportion of YES, NO and DON'T_CARE opinions. How can those
> proportions be captured? We need (YES > NO) AND (YES+NO > QUORUM)
> to pass the motion. Can we avoid feedback from partial tallies?
>
> (Feedback based on comments, i.e. public encouragement to vote one way
> or the other, especially with our rules that allow reconsideration, is
> ok. It's feedback based on partial tallies that worries me. So how can
> we get the benefits of the former without the nuisance of the latter?)
>
> Michel.
>
> P.S. I'm not complaining about George's publishing of the partial tallies.
> Since voting is public we could all keep our own tally anyway. This
> openness is GOOD in my opinion. I'm just wondering if we can address
> some of the less desirable consequences...
> ---Sent: 2011-07-19 16:14:37 UTC
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA
414-288-6599; GasDay: 288-4400; Fax 288-5579
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg