[HCoop-Discuss] Proportional Representation?

[Nathan Kennedy]

Michael Potter wrote:
> Disagreement from individuals or a minority group here is generally
> disregarded or put down. It's short-sighted to deal with inevitable
> differences of opinion in such a zero-sum fashion. 
>
> As people become dissatisfied and leave, they not only slow growth but
> they become negative PR for Hcoop and possibly for the cooperative
> movement in general. Tension is slowly building with some who are
> dissatisfied but not inclined to leave. 
>
> It's impossible to please everyone, but I think allowing for minority
> voices to have some influence would reduce the tension and stop most of
> the turnover. There are at least two major 'parties' here: a small group
> of experienced people who have some preferences and a large, silent
> majority who will apparently eat whatever they're served. Far be it from
> me to try to force anyone to participate against their will, but a lack
> of participation is not the same as approval.
>   
Do you really feel that this is the case?  There has been a certain 
amount of back-and-forth, but I don't see this groundswell of discontent 
you seem to be describing.  There have been a handful of members with 
major concerns, but they don't all line up in any cohesive fashion.  In 
my opinion our current structure adequately allows for everyone to have 
input.  Anyone can participate in the process, which is as open as we 
can make it, and anyone can call for votes and run candidates.

It seems to me that if you are concerned about minority representation, 
the lack of involvement by many HCoop members that you mention actually 
allows for _disproportionately_ greater influence by any person with a 
minority position that they want to advance.
> Rather than start a lengthy discussion on the shortcomings of majority
> rule, let me just say this: George W. Bush.
I object to your pessimistic assessment of HCoop's membership, and 
contend that not only is the average HCoop member wiser than the average 
American, but most members are not Americans.
> What do people think of
> using proportional representation for the next election?
>
> I mean something like this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count#Modified_Borda_count
>   
Borda count has nothing to do with proportional representation.  It's 
just another method of voting.  We can spend all day debating the merits 
of different voting methods, they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

> Combined with this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method
>   
So how do you want to apportion members for your "proportionate 
representation"?  You want to have factions and have members affiliate 
themselves with "parties"?  I don't think I like that idea.  If we had 
natural divisions, say geographic, or by different services that members 
use, then it might at some point make sense to have representative and 
at large seats, but I see no reason to divvy up the membership like this 
now, that seems needlessly divisive.  Can't we all get along?

Also don't forget that there will be two more board seats in the next 
election.  I was just about to send a reminder email out urging people 
to get moving with nominations and pre-election platforms etc.  More 
seats on the board means more opportunity for direct representation of 
"minority" viewpoints.  Our system is not entirely first-past-the-post 
in the American way, everyone gets up to 5 votes, the election is spread 
out over time and there is lots of room for input from all persons involved.

-ntk