PDA

View Full Version : What is the best voting method?




Elwar
02-23-2011, 12:24 PM
What would be the best voting method? And by best I mean the least amount of people are unhappy with the group decision and the most people are satisfied with the group decision?

Example:
15 home owners buy their property and as part of the purchase they own a percentage of a large lot behind all of the homes. They are left to decide what they want to do with the open lot.

Let's say someone wants to put up a playground on the lot. They have the money and all they need is the permission of the home owners.

What would be the best way to decide whether or not a playground gets put up? Would you have everyone elect a small committee to decide? Would you have a vote and the majority wins? Would you have a vote and 3/4 majority wins, 14/15 wins? 100% unanimous wins?

If it requires the permission of all 15, what if a competing home development accross the road buys one house for the sole purpose of being that sole vote to make sure nothing good is done with the lot? How do you account for that?

Of course, that's just an example with much larger things in mind. Just wanted some input on this.

olehounddog
02-23-2011, 12:28 PM
I would say 15 people owning 1 piece of property is a problem. There is no way all will be satisfied. That is a tough one.

Elwar
02-23-2011, 12:44 PM
I would say 15 people owning 1 piece of property is a problem. There is no way all will be satisfied. That is a tough one.

That's just an easy example. You have things today with millions of stockholders owning the same company, partnerships running businesses, families owning a farm, etc...

ChaosControl
02-23-2011, 12:46 PM
100%.

If something is going to be done to something I own, I should have to say its okay, even if I only own a percent of it.
This is why you keep things separate and collectives small to where views are similar and thus that 100% is easier to achieve.

fisharmor
02-23-2011, 12:55 PM
That's just an easy example. You have things today with millions of stockholders owning the same company, partnerships running businesses, families owning a farm, etc...

Stockholders empower company officers to make decisions.
Partnerships are either legally protected, or they aren't and run risks of getting into disputes.
Families owning a farm? Must be millions of cases in the last century of one family member doing away with the family farm to the chagrin of the others.

None of those scenarios is going to fit into a box. I don't think the neighborhood park example does, either.
I'm gonna go with these two axioms:
1) The best way is the way that those 15 people decide on.
2) The best way is invariably NOT going to be the way that gets decided by people with no stake in the outcome.

I oppose the state being involved in these things because the state has no stake, but when it gets involved, it creates its own stake in the outcome.
I don't see how us doing the same thing gets us anywhere. By the time outside forces get involved, any hope of coming to a fair conclusion is gone.

Elwar
02-23-2011, 12:57 PM
100%.

If something is going to be done to something I own, I should have to say its okay, even if I only own a percent of it.
This is why you keep things separate and collectives small to where views are similar and thus that 100% is easier to achieve.

That's my original belief as well. But my main concern is the infiltration of one or two people who wish to undermine things. There are always competitors to most things that would require a group vote, and if someone were able to de-rail the vote by going in and being the sole "No", then it would cause the whole thing to crumble.

I do agree that 100% would be ideal though.

UtahApocalypse
02-23-2011, 01:08 PM
This is the path to HOA's and that is not a road you should travel

freshjiva
02-23-2011, 01:12 PM
Great question.

The answer to the question, in my opinion, lies in the formative agreement of the managing partners (owners). The original Partnership agreement must have included voting procedure for making group decisions.

For example, if the operating agreement of the Partnership was to for all future development, renovation, and expansion be decided by a simple majority, then that is all that's necessary for maximum satisfaction. If the Partnership was set up that it requires a super majority, then that is the answer, and so on.

So before even having a vote to decide on whether or not to build a playground, a requisite of joining the Partnership would be, "As a Partner, you agree to yield to the Simple/Super or Unanimous Vote the Partnership takes on for all future decisions."

That way, everyone still has a vote on the specific project, but they have already agreed to yield to the Partnership by a simple/super/unanimous vote.

nayjevin
02-23-2011, 02:00 PM
In many cases I'd rather see deadlock than the majority defining the action. I like the two axioms from fisharmor above:


1) The best way is the way that those 15 people decide on.
2) The best way is invariably NOT going to be the way that gets decided by people with no stake in the outcome.

I also would mention this one (not an original idea):

- As a group becomes bigger, agreement becomes harder to reach

In cases where there are multiple options, I'd say runoff voting, where a vote is taken, then the one with the least votes is removed, then vote again, repeat until only one option left -- is better than a onevote. Complicated models can include preferences, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice. I like a debate between each round. I also like requiring that those who voted for the worst-performing option agree to move on - this is possible among reasonable people - particularly those that understand sacrifice is necessary for cooperative endeavor. And in the last round, 100% agreement is obviously desirable, but only sometimes possible - hence smaller groups make more just group decisions (as pertains to their members.)

When there might be folks who intentionally deadlock, usually dropping the 100% requirement to 95% will stop that, at the potential expense of justice. Perhaps deadlock is what serves justice - sometimes 14 people are wrong, and 1 person is right.

olehounddog
02-23-2011, 02:15 PM
That's just an easy example. You have things today with millions of stockholders owning the same company, partnerships running businesses, families owning a farm, etc...

With these you usually have some type of pecking order. Major stockholders or in families the eldest usually has say. Partners will just have to fight it out. I'm a simple man so I can only give simple answers. I have no idea which way would be best.