More Effective Democratic Voting Structure

[brit]

 This proposal received a lot of support at the 3PM GA and should be discussed and voted on at the next evening assembly. We recognize that the process of decision making will be an on going and possibly changing discussion based on material conditions the movement faces.
 

Proposal for a More Democratic Voting Structure Introduction:

Decision making should happen in a way that allows as many people as possible to participate in the most transparent and democratic way possible. Discussions that drag on for hours mean fewer and fewer people will actually vote because they are unable to stay due to work, travel, children etc. We are for democracy which means full discussion and debate, but also that the majority opinion should carry on any vote or question.

This means that a minority of people should not be able to constantly block what the majority agrees or votes affirmatively on. If minority rule prevails, that by definition is anti-democratic. This is not meant and is not a means of limiting participation and discussion-all views and proposals are fully welcomed and discussed [under the newly adopted GA structure particularly]-but decisions need to be made so that the struggle can move forward. Endless blocking by a few people over hours of meeting means decisions are not made by a majority and people leave confused, frustrated and unsure of how the movement will grow.

Proposal:

1. All decisions should be made by a two-thirds simple majority (75/25).
2. All proposals to the GA on political principles, actions etc should have equal time to be presented.
3. Proposals should be written or stated in the briefest way possible. Time limits of presentations have been agreed upon as 5min [under the newly adopted GA structure of proposal presentations].
4. Once the proposals are made a set amount of time will be given to discuss, clarify, and speak for or against the particular proposals. During this discussion period amendments can also be offered to the proposals. If the mover of 
a proposal views an amendment as friendly a proposed amendment can be added to the proposal. If it is not viewed  as friendly it can only be voted on after the initial proposals are voted on. People who get on stack to discuss 
proposals should adhere to the 2min rule, and argue for or against the proposal put forward.
5. Once the agreed upon period of discussion has ended (a motion can always be put forward to extend discussion if need be) each proposal should be voted on. Everyone can only vote once. The proposal with the majority of votes passes.
6. If the vote is tied there should be an agreed upon period of discussion for and against the two top vote-receiving proposals. A vote would then be held and the proposal with the most votes passes.

[m_x]

I like, although I'm unsure how I feel about the "All decisions should be made by a two-thirds simple majority (75/25)."  

 

The one thing I like about the structure and movement thus far is that it is straying from getting caught up in ideological battles.  Instead it seems that the focus has been on our common struggles.  There is so much that the far left and far right are in agreement on yet we get hung up on the fact that we have different ways we'd like to see these problems dealt with.   This keeps us from standing together when we really need to.   Neither political party is addressing the vast majority of common concerns of the American people.

 

By making our grievances as wide reaching as possible we have to the ability to reach the largest amount of disenfranchised citizens.   Which a 9/10ths majority would allow for.

 

I guess I'm just playing the devils advocate though because I can see how as the movement grows it will become harder and harder to accomplish anything with a 9/10ths majority agreement. 

[Andy Manos]

Hey M_X!

 

I totally appreciate your concern. It is necessary to cast a wide net. But this assumes that we have not done this already. If you would, perhaps, I could also play devil's advocate here.

 

This movement has tapped into something deep. Something that all, traders walking past us on their lunch break, cabbies driving by us, and bus drivers honking at us, all recognize and support. In fact, one could say that we have pierced the surface of a long tempered anger. We are in fact the 99%

 

If this is the case, then we also have a responsibility that extends outside of ourselves. We have a chance to do something great and to rise to the occasion and respond to and for those who cannot do this. It is a great responsibility and one that demands that we begin to make clear decisions, move forward, and quickly articulate this long standing anger in the form of both federal demands (reverse Citizens V. United) and local chicago demands. If we do not rise up to this responsibility through a collective, democratic, and efficient decision making proccess, then we will fail not only ourselves, but also everyone else.

 

This structure allows for the minority to be heard and to have a chance to sway others through argumentation. In other words, it allows the minority to win over the majority. And it does so in a manner that respects the majority's right to disagree and not be swayed by a minority.  What could be more democratic?

[m_x]

Andy,

 

I agree 100%.  Streaming lining things is extremely important.  At the same its really important that we don't streamline to much which could lead to recklessness.  

My honest opinion is that we are headed in the right direction and I think the new proposed voting rules will help this along.   I think it makes sense that it will take time to put together our grievances, these are BIG issues :)  We (as well as New York) have already accomplished so much even though we sometimes feel things are dragging or hitting brick walls.  We should not get discouraged by the media which expects clear concise grievances ASAP. We have been fairly clear in what we are trying to address, we shouldn't be worried about what they have to say.  

 

So in short, I support the proposed voting structure. 

[Orion]

I have given this a lot of thought and have decided to support this structure.  We are many but those who want to move forward and do something are being held up by those who are more moderate or it is the other way around.  

I have been hesitant to let go of a veto power, something that I haven't even been able to exercise in many cases due to being even less than ten percent. 

That said, I see that we need to decide who we are. I also believe that allowing the issues to be fully discussed will allow people to think out their decisions and make less irrational ones.  The streamlining of bad ideas seemed to be happening more when we were using the old stack system; it resulted in only certain voices being augmented over others.

Are we a group that is going to sit on a sidewalk and be complacent to every request that the police make?  Are we going to try to citizen's arrest anarchists and threaten to call the police on each other?

or

Are we going to buckle down and earn the respect that we are being afforded.  It is my belief that we are reaping the benefits of the actions taken by brave protesters in New York.  I don't think that we are earning that respect... Yet.

I am content to let the majority of our group guide the direction that we will take at this impasse.  

I also think that some of us are not in the group that we think we are.  It seems that it will be good for us all to figure out where we all really stand.

Please, let's pass this thing 

[optessimist]

side note - It may also help to consider all the various proposals from the group as "Phase" based, meaning we will not address every concern now, but will group a smaller priority set into first phase, then compile a list for second phase while the first is being aired publicly, and so forth.

 

This first list won't be generated until a metric is devised to help rank (not just vote) on the various proposals on here. I believe a couple of metrics could help rank the various demands/grievances:

 

Feasibility (meaning measure of public support and political practicality)

Benefit (expected return both in size of economic benefit and immediacy of implementation)

 

This is otherwise know as going after "low hanging fruit", or return on investment analysis. Adding voted upon numbers into both of these columns let us much more easily rank the list, when both numbers are high you can more easily see which Top X items get put into the first phase, as opposed to having 50 popular items without any way to prioritize them.

[Orion]

I would like to hedge my earlier statement a little, now that I have gotten some sleep, to say that most of us have not yet earned the respect being given us.

[Billy]

Two-thirds is 2/3 or 66% / 33% not 75%/25% which is three-quarters or 3/4

 

     I for one do not support democracy. Democracy is simply the majority asserting it's will over the minority. I find the concept of consensus and modified consensus that NY uses to be interesting.

 

     I think a lot has been accomplished in two weeks and people might just be a little impatient. Getting things done well I think is more important than getting them done fast. I don't see enough of things going back into committee to be rediscussed. It seem some of us are in too much of a hurry to get things done. There is no quick fix. The instant gratification need that is endemic to US culture I think is at root cause of many of today's problems. I feel that it is important to keep in mind that this is a process and not an end. We are not developing a final solution but designing a new way of being.

 

    I think that keeping things at a high threshold of approval makes us work harder to make proposals more acceptable to more people. As things are now I think they move too fast instead of not fast enough.

 

     I've been watching the NYCGAs a bit and they have gotten a lot done with the consensus process. They also think that there is a difference between a block and a no vote that I have not seen a way to distinguish between. If someone feels so strongly about something that they would like to block it then I think that person needs to get involved in the topic at a committee level and try to work it out.