[Noisebridge-discuss] Voting experiment.

[Jacob Appelbaum]

On 09/09/2010 09:02 PM, Josh Myer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/09/2010 07:11 PM, Josh Myer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/09/2010 06:27 PM, Ceren Ercen wrote:
>>>>> "Many of us are willing to voice
>>>>> absent members' concerns during meetings, even if we do not share them"
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that's not unique to a consensus-style governance. You all
>> would
>>>> do
>>>>> this for each other regardless.
>>>>
>>>> The importance difference is one of agency.
>>>>
>>>> With our consensus style discussion, a person is able to effectively
>>>> discuss a point and express (a lack of or support for) consensus on
>>>> behalf of whoever they proxy.
>>>>
>>>> It's rare in a voting system to give out extra ballots to people who say
>>>> they're representing some other people who aren't at the polling place.
>>>> Generally, that defeats the purpose of letting people vote in the first
>>>> place...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I fail to see how this is anything but a benefit.
>>
>> Some of us don't have the ability to show up to Tuesday meetings?
>>
>>
> I meant the handing out of extra ballots, which this system would
> necessarily require.

A flaw surely to be corrected for when the results are tallied in their
experiment? ;-)

> 
> As they say in Chicago, vote early, vote often!
> --


I prefer the mantra of "retire early and often" but that works too.

> /jbm, who has grown oddly fond of the consensus process

Conservative! :-p

All the best,
Jake