Proposal:Change vote counting rules - remove no show paradox

make proposal voting outcome more logical
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	Mateusz Konieczny
Draft started:	2021-01-05
RFC start:	2021-01-05
Vote start:	2021-01-19
Vote end:	2021-02-02

Proposal

Threshold

Change the rule on what counts as successful vote from

"8 unanimous approval votes or at least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval"

to

"at least 8 approval votes and at least 75 % approval"

Vacatio legis

This rules (if accepted) apply to votes started on 2021-02-10 or later

Cosmetic changes

Some additional cosmetic edits may be necessary such as adding new "Historic note" in Proposal_process#Approved.

Rationale

Currently 8 yes votes and 1 no vote results in a failed proposal, but 8 yes votes and 2 no votes results in accepted proposal.

This results in a situation where voting "no" causes an otherwise rejected proposal to pass, which is ridiculous and case of no show paradox violating participation criterion. Also, changing "more than 74% approval" to "at least 75% approval" has no significant change in what is necessary for a succesful vote, but makes it easier to explain. Now the rule of thumb "every no vote requires 3 yes votes to overcome it" would become strictly true.

Examples

Under current rules:

• 26 yes votes and 9 no votes is 74.3% of support that is sufficient for proposal to pass
• 8 yes votes and 1 no votes is resulting in rejected proposal
• 8 yes votes and 2 no votes is resulting in accepted proposal (so additional "no" vote changed it from rejected to passing)

Under proposed rules:

• 26 yes votes and 9 no votes is 74.3% of support that is rejecting proposal
• 8 yes votes and 1 no votes is resulting in accepted proposal
• 8 yes votes and 2 no votes is resulting in accepted proposal

Applies to

Proposal process

Impact

Vote counting rule has mostly cosmetic impact and changes some frustrating corner cases.

External discussions

• Talk:Proposal_process#illogical_result_with_8_yes_and_1_no_.3C.3E_8_yes_and_2_no (permalink)
• tagging mailing list post on 2021-01-05
• Statistics on past approved proposals
• Proposed features/Checkpoint for Tourism - 8 votes for, 1 against. Under current rules it would be rejected, with 1 more against making it passing.

See also

• Clarification of proposal process - explicit abstaining is not a vote (previous change of vote rules)
• Proposed features/change vote counting rules - original larger proposal that tried to change multiple things at once

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 56 votes for, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions.

Thanks to everyone for voting! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Turns out that bundling multiple changes together in Proposed features/change vote counting rules was a mistake. Hopefully this part is a clearly good idea and it is not necessary to split it into "count only yes votes in quorum" and "more that 74% vs at least 75%". --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. thanks for splitting it Marc marc (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Good start at tidying things up! --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Phidauex (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., and in fact I think this proposal doesn't go far enough. Given the history of past votes, it is completely reasonably to raise the minimum threshold to 10 or 12. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be a good candidate for a follow-up proposal. JeroenHoek (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Westnordost (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Bradrh (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I absolutely support this proposal. A 'no' vote should not ever be what sways a proposal to 'approved' status. --Blendergeek (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Alesarrett (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Carnildo (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I support this effort to start simplifying the voting rules but would recommend to go farther: as you suggested in your initial proposal the "other factors may also be considered" is way too unspecific if we compare it with other part of the voting rules, and same for the "a rule of thumb" mention that is completely contradictory with setting a very specific percentage and minimum number of voters -- MarTintamarre (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, vote for other parts of the proposal of original rule, especially removal of dead "other factors may also be considered" rule may be a good idea. If someone wants: feel free to create new proposal by copying Proposed features/change vote counting rules (it even went through RfC) and removing parts of it so you end with a single change. I will likely do this, but I plan to have no more than one of my votes active. And this vote and Proposed features/healthcare=sample_collection and Proposed features/remove link to Wikidata from infoboxes are in the queue Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I follow this unwritten rule also (only one vote open at a time per proposer), and I think we should codify it. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --GoodClover (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Woazboat (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Adamfranco (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. This is great, but I wish votes were kept secret until the end of the voting. Vote by "acclamation" has its purpose, but here is not doing any good. --Mashin (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Having witnessed, what the meaning of "approved" can be construed as, I'd rather see rules that would lead to less approvals, but the case made here is quite convincing. In mathematics speak it will turn the threshold from an open delimiter to a closed delimiter, and such is very much appreciated with voting. --Hungerburg (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Kathleenlu (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Shaun das Schaf (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --AlephNull (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Chris2map (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mordechai23 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Darellur (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Ibanez (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 18:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Rogehm 22:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --GeoMechain (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Lejun (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Vinber (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I thought about to vote note to show this craziness. Pleased to see such an unanimous vote with more than a happy few participants. --Nospam2005 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --حبيشان (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Juan Carlos G F (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fnordson (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Dakon (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mueschel (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --TheBlackMan (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Robybully (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Protoxenus (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mhaelsig (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Pepilepioux (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Rouelibre (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Thank you for the proposal ! --Gileri (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Ravlop (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --SafetyIng (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --mnalis (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Qeef (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Kubahaha (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Nyampire (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.