Supermajority Voting

From FleetWiki

If you lose a match 6-5 due to a bad penalty decision by the ref you feel cheated.
If you lose 4-1 in a fairly contested match you might be disappointed
...but at least you know that you were beaten fair and square - even if all the goals were in extra-time.

Payo suggests using a Supermajority voting system as an alternative to Arithon and EddieB's voting system

Instigating a vote: an alternative approach

Here is the current proposal of the Supermajority Voting system:

1. Any member of the MyFootballClub Industrial and Provident Society can instigate a vote on anything they like.
2. The proposal is open for debate and discussion for at least 2 weeks and continues until 80% of those voting have voted in favour of the proposal; or until 80% of those voting have voted against the proposal. Initially the percentage needed to reach a supermajority is 80% however this can be adjusted for particular vote by means of a separate poll. The default percentage can also be changed from 80% by a vote to reduce it.
3. A list of active votes and a running tally of votes for and against is displayed on the MyFC website.
4. Members can change their vote at anytime up to the point when the super majority (for or against) is reached.
5. Once the supermajority is reached the proposal is passed to the board for them to act on; or (if a super majority vote against it) it is rejected.

[edit] Objections to Supermajority voting:

Three specific objections to Supermajority voting have emerged from the debate on the forum. These are:

[edit] 1) It creates slow, never ending debates:

Quoting Arithon: "We won't have the time, with any motion that matters, to carry on debate ad infinitum."

Response:

Football clubs just like other businesses rarely suffer very much because they take their time over making important decisions. Due Diligence can be slow - but the more important the decision the more careful we should be that members back the proposal.

Of course another problem with first-past-the-post voting system with arbitrary deadlines is that they can result in hurried and ill-considered decisions being taken.

Remember also that Supermajority voting only extends the time taken to make decisions when a consensus cannot be reached. This is an advantage, not a problem.

When emergency decisions need to be made at short notice it would probably be better for The Board to make an executive decision and for them to ask the membership forgiveness after the fact. I think that Eddie and Arithon's proposal recognises this too.

[edit] 2) 80% is too high:

Quoting J.T.: "80% is way too high."

Response:

Supermajority voting can use any percentage we want to choose. 80% is a good figure to start at because it is high enough to give a decision real authority but not so high that a small minority can block every decision. The percentage could be reduced if necessary - though in practice if it goes below 67% it starts to lose credibility.

[edit] 3) No quorum:

Quoting jellis2000: "...it is obvious that if any member can instigate a vote on anything they like it will very quickly become unworkable."

Response:

To reduce the number of trivial, joke or malicious proposals Eddie and Arithon's system depends on proposals being "seconded" by a certain number of people. With Supermajority voting such votes get rejected once 80% of of voters vote against the proposal. In practice it isn't very different.