User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Since the procedures for tallying committee members' votes on proposals are fairly unclear, the following would seem sensible:

• A set of proposals are "alternative" to each other if they are listed under the same number - that is to say as 14, 14.1 and 14.2.
• Where multiple alternative proposals exist, they are resolved using a
  Single Transferable Vote
  system; that is, the proposals are recursively compared, and the one with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, with its votes transferred to arbitrators' next-choice proposal. Arbitrators' vote rankings are determined principally by their stated preferences, but where these are not made explicit, more recent votes are assumed to be preferred to older votes, and between votes made at the same time where no preference is expressed, more recent proposals are assumed to be preferred over older ones. If multiple proposals have an equal number of first-choice votes, more recent proposals take precedence over older ones.
• Once alternative proposals have been eliminated, proposals with an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators pass, and all others fail.
• The proposals which would pass if the case were to close will be set out by a clerk when a motion to close is proposed, or at arbitrator request.

I don't think we need to worry too much about exceptional circumstances in terms of vote rankings, since arbitrators can always be asked to make their preferences clear.