[r6rs-discuss] required explanations

From: Erich Rast <erich>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:17:27 +0200

>
> Requiring explanations either way would have been a start.
> Requiring explanations for neither would have been the proper way
> to do it. The only way in which the system used might have been
> reasonable would have been if the electorate were smaller and
> precisely chosen. As it is now, there are many people voting yes
> without any hint either in their explanations (or lack thereof) or
> in mailing list posts that they've even read the thing. What a joke!
>

I agree with you. This issue has been discussed before, but no
conclusive argument has ever been given why this bias in the voting
procedure would be justified. The only argument I've heard of was
that the editors would like to hear the reasons for a NO vote in
order to learn about possible improvements of future reports. But the
desire of the editors to get some feedback can hardly justify the
democratic legitimacy of the voting procedure itself. It seems clear
to me that in any democratic voting procedure, the exact same
requirements must be in charge for all voters, regardless of what
they vote.

I don't want to add fuel to the fire---and personally I'm satisfied
with the outcome of the voting---, but I believe the bias of the
voting procedure had a significant effect in the present case, as the
result was so close.

IMHO, the right way would have been to require a written explanation
of at least 150 words of all voters, regardless of what they vote.

Regards,

Erich
Received on Fri Aug 17 2007 - 05:17:27 UTC