[Elections] Re: Who votes? how does voting work?

[Peter Crowther]

> From: [...] Daniel Vainsencher
> Like I said the last time you posted this list, the barrier against 
> these people under SqP is practically non-existent. Just make them 
> users, certify them, and send them their password.

Mmm.  That's fine as long as one makes reasonable choices for the things
that can't be changed, like usernames.

I have to say that I'm loath to allow any kind of proxy sign-up on SqP,
and would be very wary of the motives of anyone who admitted to doing
such a thing.  For example, I create an account for Alan Kay, rate it,
and ask you to rate it - of course, I tell you I've sent him details of
the account.  You do this.  Great, I now have control of a Master-level
account, and can forge postings and ratings from Alan on SqP.  And
you've certified he's him!  Marvellous!

Quite apart from probably being a violation of various laws under most
Western legal systems, such an approach is most impolite :-).

[Aside: Anyone want to rate the account 'Ozzard' on SqP?]

> "people 
> x,y,z are not on SqP" doesn't look to me like a valid reason 
> to reject SqP.

I wouldn't *reject* SqP; I would be cautious about making it the *only*
mechanism, however.

> Anyway, I 
> predict over 200 new ratings within 24 hours of the moment we 
> state that this is the criterion for voting.

Indeed.  At present, SqP is non-essential.  If it becomes more of a
focal point, I suspect people will in fact make the effort to get
themselves on it and to get their mates to rate them.

> On who proposes referenda, a seconding mechanism would be a fine 
> alternative. So one person proposes, one seconds? Proposer 
> gets to set the date?

I'm with Lex on this - how does a group of concerned outsiders raise an
issue?  For example, the issue of the legitimacy or otherwise of the
current power structure?

I think requiring a minimum of n supporters of a proposal would work.
We would need to discuss n.  2 is probably small; 200 is probably large.

> And a critical matter - do we need a lower bound on voter 
> turnabout for 
> a proposal to pass? if not, we probably want a lower bound on 
> voting time.

The approach on UglyMUG (a multi-user game where I've been wrestling
with admin issues for almost 16 years now) is to have no lower bound on
turnout, but a minimum 1 week discussion and voting time (and as much
longer as the proposers wish to allocate).  There have been occasions on
votes that were perceived as important where people have explicitly said
'I don't understand yet, and hence don't want to change the status quo;
I vote against this proposal for now, but let's keep discussing until I
understand and can make a reasoned decision'.  That tends to heat up the
discussion fairly rapidly!

		- Peter