On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have > > been an option, or people would have voted it equally. > > People were confused. > > Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time > for rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted > that option to the ballot.
The Secretary does not have the power to reject ballot options. > It inadvertently weakened the > constitutional protection against changes to the constitution. I currently fail to see how it does. > Neither the option's proponents nor the voters understood the > deleterious effect. (Nor did I.) At a minimum, the public was entitled > to a warning from the Project Secretary. I still fail to understand your point. > > Option 3 has no effect on the majority results. The options are compared > > to the NOTA option. > > Folks opposing "secret votes" should never have placed Option 2 ahead > of NOTA, and would not have done so if Option 3 had been absent. I fail to see why they did not properly express their vote. If you think the text that is part of every ballot is not clear enough, please suggest changes to it. The whole point of the NOTA option is to be able to mark options as acceptable or not. Either an option is acceptable, and you rank it above the NOTA option, or it's not and you rank it bellow the NOTA option, or you don't care and rank it equal. The NOTA option's only purpose is mark options as acceptable or not, which is then used to see if the majority finds this option acceptable or not. Option 3 does not have any effect on how you should vote for the other 2 options, you either still find them acceptable or not. It allows you to express that you prefer the current system while also finding the other options acceptable, or that you prefer the secret vote and find the current system acceptable. It also allows expressing that you find the current system not acceptable, but I'm not sure that has a real effect on the result. Option 3 did have an advantage over the other otions because it does not modify the constitution, and so it did not require a 3:1 super majority. Option 2 barely made the 3:1 super majority requirements: 185/61 = 3.03. One person voting the other way, 184/62 = 2.97 would have dropped that option, and option 3 would have been the only option passing the majority requirements despite option 2 being more popular and acceptable than option 3. Kurt
