The following is a partial transcript from the fifth Union meeting. To read the first transcript click here and to read the second transcript click here."Fancy seeing you here."
"I know! It's been awhile."
"Why haven't you been coming to the meetings?"
"Oh you know, life gets busy slaughtering the lawn faeries and all that."
"That's too bad because I'm interested in hearing how your whole voting shift idea is turning out! Does it result in a more fair way to determine who to Exile?"
"That's the ultimate question... but fairness is so hard to define."
"So catch me up. What were your thoughts and ideas behind the previous two voting shifts?"
"Well in Episode #6 I decided to make them vote using a system called Forum Mafia."
"What the hell is a forum?"
"Er... it's kinda like a public bulletin board where everyone writes things on it. And it's gigantic, and you can write on it from anywhere even your own home."
"Oh yes, I remember when you made us vote like that. First, you brought us all into a room. Then you forbid us from talking to each other."
"That was pretty funny."
"The only way we could communicate was to all write on the same chalkboard on the wall. And we had to write sequentially down the board until we reached a conclusion."
"Yes... that was a unique system."
"That was so weird, what kind of group makes decisions without talking to each other, leaving notes behind on a giant chalkboard? That's insanity. That's no way to catch bad guys. Where the hell did you get that idea from?"
"Well, you know, I have it on good authority that that exact method is how every other Union in the country makes their Exile decisions."
"Whaaaaaaat?!? You serious?"
"Crazy, I know."
"So how did that work out?"
"Couldn't really tell. You all were already decided on an Exile candidate. And like I said earlier, no voting shift is going to make a 20-1 vote intriguing. We didn't really get to see what would happen since it all ended in a supermajority so quickly."
"Bummer. Well I guess if we want to see how that voting shift works we could, as you claim, just go to every other Union in the country and watch them do it that way."
"True. The one after that was more interesting... the consensus decision making one."
"Now that one was a good idea. I'm surprised we hadn't thought of it before, it's so simple. What was your motivation behind that one?"
"Well, in a perfect world, the group would just come together in rational discussion and harmoniously come to a consensus on what they want to decide. Through calm, labored discussion, a mature facilitator who guides the discussion, several other roles to keep things pertinent and advancing smootly, and the goodwill of everyone involved, it should work."
"So what went wrong?"
"We don't live in a perfect world."
"Bummer."
"Besides all the lofty expectations that may or may not have been met, the biggest problem was time. Calm discussion takes a lot of time, especially when there's so much to discuss and only one person can talk at a time."
"Yeah I remember that. I got up at 6:00 AM, was at work by 7, worked till 5, then had to attend the most boring meeting all night before crawling into bed! That was terrible!"
"And that was just the first night of discussions. Turns out a lot of people had a lot of things they wanted to say. It wasn't clear how all that discussion morphed into a consensus decision."
"Also while we tried to have everyone's voices be equal, life just doesn't work that way. Some people are pushier than others, voice their opinions louder. Some aren't willing to bend, others cave in too quickly. People can take control of the meeting and guide discussion away from where it should be. It's just a convoluted mess."
"Yeah. I'm beginning to think that maybe that's an inevitability. Maybe the problem isn't the voting system, maybe it's ourselves."
"Oh don't say that quite yet! Because I've got a brand new system to try!"
"Well go on, tell me about this one."
"Okay, so I think I've isolated the problem with all the other systems. Every other voting shift had one thing in common. Something basic, something we just assumed was the way to go. Something that shouldn't necessarily be the case."
"And?"
"Every other shift had this property: one person, one vote."
"Well duh! That's the cornerstone of democracy!"
"Or is it? Why should everyone have equal votes when not everyone contributes equally? Why should a suspected Spy have the same amount of votes as a confirmed citizen?"
"Well, democracy and all that..."
"You'd be surprised. Almost all companies don't make their decisions that way, including this one."
"Really?"
"Yeah. Not everyone has the same amount of stake in the company, so each gets a different amount of 'votes' to cast."
"Well that's interesting. I wonder if that would apply here..."