[ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules

[Evan Leibovitch]

My latest (and hopefully final) observations:


   - I am swayed by those who prefer the original wording of #4.

   - The "independence" rationale against changing #4 is without merit (and
   insulting to the integrity of the voters), though other valid reasons exist

   - In a "votes are visible throughout the poll" scheme, more weight of
   influence may be unduly given to those who vote fastest with an intent to
   sway. Mid-poll is not the time to be trying to influence one's peers, that
   should be done in pre-vote debate. Indeed the most compelling argument
   against changing #4 is that it would further reduce the motivation for
   pre-vote discussion and issue awareness. As it is, we already are
   challenged in this regard

   - If I feel weak on an issue and want to know the opinion of trusted
   colleagues, I can do that privately and/or before the vote starts. I don't
   need to see how they vote during the poll. Better still, there should be
   open debate where I can hear from everyone on not just how they intend to
   vote, but why.

   - Transparency and accountability requirements are sufficiently
   fulfilled by posting who-voted-how after the results are final (which is
   what the original #4 already mandates)

   - In a weak moment, I dream that the level and quality of debate given
   to this process issue matter might perhaps extend to our policy issues.


Cheers,

- Evan