This thread is created in the archives as it is an elaborated example to the voting process where issues are concerned in which the DAO has polar opposite stands. If you have not read the preceding thread of encouraging everyone to participate in governance, click here.
In the event that an issue is being discussed with polar opposite stands, we might need to take a different approach. Let’s take an exaggerated example.
If staking rewards are being discussed, one group wants to increase staking rewards, while another wants to decrease the rewards and a third group wants things to stay the way they are. Options of the vote end up being
A: Increasing staking rewards by 20%
B: Decreasing staking rewards by 20%
C: Nothing changes
If the distribution of votes is as follows;
It would seem that we have different winners using the scenarios described here.
With the one-stage voting procedure, it would seem that option A wins by having the most votes, thus staking rewards being increased.
The two-stage voting process as described in Paradoxical voting process would not make sense. This process would first ask whether a change would occur, thus grouping people who want to increase and people who want to decrease staking rewards since both are changes.
However, it would be sensible that no change would occur to staking rewards in the end. Both voters for A and B prefer C as second-best. If A and B would first compete whether staking rewards are increased or decreased and A would win, all voters who would want to see staking rewards decrease prefer no change at all rather than staking rewards to increase and would thus vote for no change. Vice versa when a decrease in staking rewards would win… More simplistic votes would take shape as:
Increasing staking rewards by 20%
A: Yes (37%)
B: No (63%)
Decreasing staking rewards by 20%
A: Yes (31%)
B: No (69%)
In both scenarios, no change would occur.
Although I do admit I don’t expect this situation to arise often, I think it is good to have such systems in place to know how we deal with it when they do. In case of polar opposites in voting, we could establish that one option would need the majority (thus >50%) even though voters are split between multiple options. This is simply following the majority.
Yes, the voting process already works this way and there is no need to specifically adopt a procedure for such votes at this moment. As such, we can leave it in the drawer and it can be discussed at any time in the future when deemed necessary since I do feel it is important to have addressed it when it does happen.
*This thread is placed in archives as it is just used as an example. Only if we move forward with an adapted process of proposals and voting will this become relevant. If it does, this thread will need a slight rework to stand on its own.