Talk:Voting procedure

Some of the following discussion relates to the original wording of this procedure which was proposed in relation to a vote on whether a newly designed page should replace the main page on the English Wikipedia in August 2003.

This opinion poll has been advertised on en:talk:Main Page and en:wikipedia:list of ongoing votes, so far, AFAIK. As initial feedback seems promising, I intend to mention it on a few other pages. If the immediate reaction was "yuck!", then I'd not have advertised it any further. As the immediate reaction is positive, a call for wider opinions seems appropriate.

Already, this proposed layout change has been conducted in a considerably more consultative and civilised manner than the edit warring that took place over the addition of colours. I didn't see you criticise the people who made that change for their improper adherence to democratic ideals, so I'm a little surprised that the manner in which this change has been proposed is causing you so much concern. Martin 09:21, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't be so touchy, Mart. I'm not criticising you. What I am saying is that because there was a row last time I'd like to ensure that the next time we change, if we change, and for all changes in the future, we should set minumum requirements of participation and decision-taking. And the only edit warring that took place involved two users who decided to unilaterally delete the colour scheme agreed. If people (God forbid!) chose Temp6 and those users tried to unilaterally delete it, I'd revert their deletion too. FearÉIREANN 12:20, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, sorry for being touchy - I misread what you were saying.

Part of the reason I don't think this should be a formal majority-rules vote: if 1% of Wikipedia can't see the new page at all, say because of some weird browser bug, then we shouldn't switch to it, even if the remaining 99% think it's vastly better.

Obviously we can't have a design that everyone thinks is perfect, but it's important to get one which appeals to as many people as possible. :) Martin 14:03, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Consensus

There can never be a consensus that there should be a vote because some people oppose voting on principle.—Eloquence

Consensus does not require unanimity. But to make things easier we can put a number to it; say if 10 logged-in, known users all agree that there should be a vote, then there should be a vote unless 10 others say that there should not be a vote. But we do need to severely limit unilateral decisions to call binding votes. This leads to poorly designed and run votes. Furthermore the ability to call votes willy-nilly can be abused; a person could keep calling vote after vote after vote until they get the result they want. That is not very democratic or wiki. --Maveric149 19:44, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Does that mean we have to vote on whether or not to hold a vote? Angela

Think of it as getting a minimum number of signatures to place something on the ballot. --Maveric149

Oh yeah, that works so well. --Brion VIBBER

And think of the number of special elections we would have if there wasn't the 12% requirement? This is the first special election I remember, and the first in California's history to recall the governor. I don't see your point. --Maveric149

Sorry, my mistake. Apparently the rape of democracy by well-financed special inserests is okay as long as it doesn't happen too often. --Brion VIBBER

Robert's Rules

I attempting a rewrite based on the fundamental principles of Robert's Rules.--129.78.228.114 05:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

nutural voting process

it's a fact that some people will be for and others against and many may be abstenent this must be mentioned in the visualistion of any voting system

there will be those that say "yes" those that say "no" (simple ip count) those that have seen or accnollaged and not said anything being accnolaged but "nutral" (ip is accountable with viewed article, minus "yes" votes and minus "no" votes)

and finally those that do not know as they have not had a chance to know they are in the impossibiliy of having an avis. this infinate amount are not physical accountable without difficult mathmatic aproxamations and will be called "nutral by obligation" (ip non accountable)