I have a feeling the regeneration proposals/voting would have come to a better outcome by using the ideas outlined by @douginamug in (summary page)

There seemed to be many good intentions and ideas, but not the right structure to turn them into an acceptable proposal.

@nicksellen @douginamug

Interesting. Have you tried the Kanthaus approach or Ukuvota?

@Matt_Noyes @douginamug I'm peripherally involved in both of those projects. I think the tooling lags the theory still but a promising direction.

Sounds like it might get implemented in loomio too. See

@nicksellen @Matt_Noyes @douginamug

Neat! Back in 2013, when we made the first draft of Bylaws for, we proposed likert-scale style -3 to +3 score voting for voting on proposals, with requirements of *median* and *mean* minimums for different types of votes to pass.

Unfortunately, we didn't get it in action and don't have tooling for it yet. But I've still wanted to see the ideas in action (and we have more nuanced details in the drafts…)

@wolftune @nicksellen @Matt_Noyes I was just looking over the page before you posted this :)

Ooh, medians sounds complicated! I remember this being interested regarding the gruesome details of utility mathematics.

Multiplying negative scores by 3 and then calculating the mean has, so far, been fine for me/us.

@douginamug @nicksellen @Matt_Noyes is not fully in place and we plan to move away from multi-stakeholder to simpler structure, but I think you may find the ideas we worked out useful.

Median-minimum makes sure, e.g. that something fundamental (like a Bylaws change) doesn't pass with a majority opposed but just not as strong as the proponents.

*different* median or mean thresholds is like requiring majority vs supermajority etc.

More flexible than arbitrary ×3 idea…


median vs mean isn't about utility mathematics (we're skeptical about that stuff).

median just measures that a majority is above some level. It's not complicated.

So, for certain measures, could even say simply that the majority needs to be -1 or above so that you don't have a situation where the majority vote -2 but are overruled by a minority voting +3.

That reduces the incentive to strategically exaggerate scores without the way ×3 of negative scores weights negative.

@wolftune Yay! Someone who's interested in this. Will tag @Ultrademocracy since they have a stated interest in the topic.

Before I go further, did you have a look at the slides I made, specifically the ones about including 'status quo' and 'further discussion' options by default?

@douginamug I was already reading the slides as you wrote. So far, I agree with everything.

Side-note: it took a while for me to buy-in, but I now support STAR voting *slightly* over score for electing representatives or other selections from multiple-choice options (as opposed to yes/no on passing a proposal).


@wolftune @Ultrademocracy Wow, strong image.

I've come across STAR, and on first look seems promising. I think a lot of the CES people like it too... hang on, you're a CES person! Ah yes, it all clicks together :)

I've been almost exclusively focussing on groups which are post-conversational (i.e. >8) but pre-anonymous (i.e. <150) As such, I'm assuming relatively high levels of cooperation and haven't focused on elections too much (which a law unto themselves...)

@wolftune @Ultrademocracy based on the position that 'keeping things the same' is in fact an option and not the-natural-way-of-things, cut-offs (whether mean or median) don't make sense.

As for 3X being arbitrary, well, it is :) But so is a 2/3rds majority, or a median cut-off... these things are socially intuitive, I think there are some studies, but I'm more into direct-testing ha.


@douginamug I agree that the settings are somewhat arbitrary in that there's a judgment call for how far to weight the competing factors (e.g. status quo vs change).

"keeping things the same" as an option is a presentation detail. It can't be rejected at the same time as rejecting alternatives though. It's just just like any other option.

Sign in to participate in the conversation is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here