Multiple proposals

No it's not. You can close a proposal and start a new one. This has been discussed extensively in previous threads, but it comes up a lot and I understand why users might want it. Here's a description I've previously written about the reasoning for this...

The standard procedure on Loomio is to let a proposal play out, and then if it can be improved, to raise another one sequentially. Loomio proposals can be ended earlier than the initial deadline if needed, and a new one started. This is because unlike a synchronous meeting process, people on Loomio are engaging at different times, and it's not fair to change a proposal before everyone has had a chance to engage with the original version first.

Also, it's important that groups have time to discuss a proposal and potentially sway each other's opinions. It's this process of constructive synthesis that leads to new solutions no one may have thought of at the beginning. Often a first proposal failing leads to an even better proposal next time.

Thanks!

It would be easier if we could set up multi-option proposals, not just yes/no ones, asking people to rank the options.

Thanks for the feedback, the idea is already on our future possible functionalities :)

When you get round to designing multi-option votes, take a look at the de Borda preferendum (www.deborda.org).

Generating more collaborative, inclusive proposals is a major challenge for Loomio, and for humanity in general. @davidnewman the de Borda preferendum looks good compared to most existing ways of comparing multiple options within a community. It's vastly superior (more rational, more powerful) to most, and probably comparable to the best. In a quick look, I can't see anything unique about it compared to other forms of preferential voting. If you're aware of any unique qualities to the preferendum, I'd appreciate info!

On a tangential note, I can't tell if the de Borda Institute's decisionmaker app is open source (like Loomio) or not. At any rate, it serves a distinctly different purpose than Loomio: creating asychronous indications of preference, in contrast to consent.

The mathematics of adding points leads to options that everyone put 2nd or 3rd beating options that half put first and half put last. It is a way of discovering where people will eventually compromise. Peter Emerson explains that in several of his books. It is also really hard to rig compared to the typical civil service approach of arranging yes/no votes in a sequence to arrive at the desired outcome.

The DecisionMaker software is not open source, simply because without the income from its sales the de Borda Institute would have to close. But the algorithms are published, and anyone can implement them.

Thanks @davidnewman for the additional information. Well, I consider ranked voting to be a quite broad and generic concept, and frankly I'm unlikely to advocate any proprietary software or systems of ranked voting. I also favor open source software design for (alternative, radical) technical and economic reasons, but I certainly appreciate the fact that de Borda algorithms are openly published. :)

The de Borda count, like Condorcet comparisons were invented at the time of the French revolution. They are two of the fairest ways of working out winners from votes that rank choices. The count of the Compte de Bordawas used in the French Academy of Sciences until a new chairman took over: Napoleon Bonaparte.

30 years ago, Peter Emerson started looking for ways to find consensus in Northern Ireland, during the worst of the troubles. He came up with a meeting and voting system that finds consensus between members of groups who hate each other. I've seen it used just during the severe conflicts during the Drumcree standoff. Tommy Sands organised a music festival and discussions on the ways forward, using the de Borda Preferendum processes (including the ways of holding meetings) to avoid spilling into typical whataboutery.

You need to read either one of Peter Emerson's books, or some of the academic social choice literature to understand the difference between this approach and the others listed in the Wikipedia article you reference. Also, the Wikipedia article is about choosing candidates - not about choosing the best option out of half a dozen proposed solutions to a problem. Ranking options, or rating them on multiple scales, are the best ways of coming up with a good consensus, solution. You need to add in a sythesis phase, so that people can merge two different solutions to produce a better one. That is why Peter Emerson has set a minimum of 75% of the maximum possible points before an option is officially accepted.

His work doesn't include a synthesis phase, but I find it helps to thing of problem-solving processes from the perspective of Garison's Theory of Critical Thinking, like in this diagram:

http://www.e-consultation.org/guide/index.php/Technology_matching_for_E-consultation

Your added details and nuance above are appreciated; thanks!

Frankly, if I would need to read a book (or any substantial essay) to understand the difference between the de Borda approach and other ranked voting systems, then I'm unlikely to ever become one of the people who understands the difference. In addition to being quite busy, I intentionally prioritize simple open protocols, systems, and brief high level summaries thereof.

I would agree that ranking or (preferably IMO) rating options is (quite) desirable in trying to identify collectively beneficial ideas and actions. However, ranking doesn't have anything directly to do with consent, which is a key point of the historic agree/abstain/disagree/block voting model which Loomio uses. Ranking per se is simply a way to indicate ordinal prioritization. Ratings systems, by contrast, can create relatively subtle assessments of people's current attraction and aversion towards specific subjects, proposals or candidates.

Ratings systems can be combined either directly/ in parallel or sequentially with a block/ veto option for members of selective communities. This is pretty closely related to my current work in communications technology design, which will all be open source licensed.

All of this seems relevant to the concept of multiple Loomio proposals, but I think the Loomio developers have quite a bit on their plates already. Perhaps they'll look at the de Borda method when they consider their multiple-choice developmental options.