MeasureDiscussionMajorityRule

Post Reply
User avatar
DGDanforth
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:16 am
Location: Palo Alto, California, USA
Contact:

MeasureMajorityRule

Post by DGDanforth »

Code: Select all

MODULE MeasureMajorityRule;	

	TYPE
		String =	POINTER TO ARRAY OF CHAR;
		Measure* =	String;
		VotingMember =	POINTER TO EXTENSIBLE RECORD
				name:	String;
				next:	VotingMember
			END;
	VAR
		N:	INTEGER; (*number of center members with voting rights*)
		votingMembers:	VotingMember;
(*
*)
	PROCEDURE (vm: VotingMember) VoteFor (m: Measure): BOOLEAN, NEW, EXTENSIBLE;
	BEGIN
		RETURN FALSE
	END VoteFor;
	
	PROCEDURE MajorityRule* (m: Measure): BOOLEAN;
	VAR n: INTEGER; pass: BOOLEAN; vm: VotingMember;
	BEGIN
		vm := votingMembers;
		n := 0;
		WHILE vm # NIL DO
			IF vm.VoteFor(m) THEN INC(n) END;
			vm := vm.next
		END;
		pass := (N/2 <= n);	(*MajorityRule*)
		RETURN pass
	END MajorityRule;
	
	PROCEDURE Populate ;
	BEGIN
		(*the votingMembers list*)
		(*N:=LEN(votingMembers)*)
	END Populate;

BEGIN
	Populate;	
END MeasureMajorityRule.
User avatar
DGDanforth
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:16 am
Location: Palo Alto, California, USA
Contact:

MeasureDiscussionMajorityRule

Post by DGDanforth »

I've created a "MeasureMajorityRule" for viewing (it is locked). Here is where we discuss the merits or failings of that majority rule measure. The concept 'quorum' is not used.

I strongly recommend that we use the term 'measure' to label a bill, issue, or anything that needs a vote. By placing the word 'Measure' first in the name of a measure we can group all measures in the same way that BlackBox handles subsystems.

I also suggest we use the majority rule to vote on the MeasureMajorityRule. If people really do not like that rule then they can vote against it.

So I suggest we have a vote on the majority rule with the choices
o For
o Against
and with a Time Span of 1 week or until the vote passes or fails, which ever comes first.

Comments please.
-Doug
User avatar
DGDanforth
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:16 am
Location: Palo Alto, California, USA
Contact:

Re: MeasureDiscussionMajorityRule

Post by DGDanforth »

MeasureMajorityRule update:
The rule should have been written
pass := (N/2 < n);
Strictly greater handles both even and odd cases for N.
Hence no need to restrict the number of voting members.

(By the way, is there a way for the author of a locked discussion to unlock it?)
-Doug
User avatar
ReneK
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:16 am
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe

Re: MeasureDiscussionMajorityRule

Post by ReneK »

I disagree to this change. Yes, it would sped up things, but sometimes speed kills.
User avatar
DGDanforth
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:16 am
Location: Palo Alto, California, USA
Contact:

Re: MeasureDiscussionMajorityRule

Post by DGDanforth »

Rene,
With 11 members a measure (proposal) would pass if 6 or more members voted for it and it would
fail if fewer than 6 voted for it.

What is it about that rule you don't like?

It simplifies things greatly.
Post Reply