The community voting system balances broad participation with informed decision-making through a structured process. Members engage with an AI dialogue system to demonstrate understanding of proposals - their benefits, drawbacks, resource requirements, and community impact - before voting. This replaces traditional age or status restrictions with a focus on comprehension, allowing any member who can articulate basic understanding to participate. All aspects are public record, including vote rationale and AI dialogue transcripts. Proposals undergo a 10-day public review where sponsors gather feedback and make adjustments, followed by a 10-day voting period requiring 50-95% support depending on impact level. The system emphasizes consensus-building over simple majority rule, with the goal of reaching decisions that address community concerns while effectively utilizing member talents and passion. #### Proposal Process 1. proposal review: 10 days public review, sponsor elicits feedback and updates proposal, 1/3 of community must agree to bring to vote - proposal vote allows for implementation suggestions/alternatives 2. consensus building: 10 days rolling public votes, no proposal changes, quorum of 75% needed - sponsor(s) responsible for: initial documentation, community engagement, proposal refinement, deliberation facilitation - workshopped initial proposal → 10 days review (changes allowed) → 10 days voting (locked) → implementation/cooling - [[voting example - governance - village living]] #### Standard Proposal Format - goal: lay person can understand in less than 5 minutes - overview: 1 paragraph for purpose and goals, community impact, implementation timeline - proposal summary: initial and ongoing costs, labor requirements, expected outputs/benefits - real time community feedback: votes, commitment, support/oppose rationale #### Voting Rationale & Op-Ed Process ##### Voting Rationale (Summary) - A concise statement (one or two sentences) - Appears on the `voting page` for quick reference. - Position (support/oppose) ##### Linked Op-Ed (Detailed Points Justifying Rationale) - A public op-ed-style piece that elaborates on a rationale #### Voting Mechanics - goal: help members make informed decisions that affect the community by 1. considering multiple perspectives 2. recognizing resource constraints/opportunities 3. understanding how other's in the community feel - one informed member 1 vote - No age restrictions - No language/articulation restrictions - Focus on demonstrating understanding, not testing ##### Understanding Check 1. Member reviews proposal 2. Through AI dialogue, show genuine understanding: - Understanding of the proposal in their own words - Required community commitments - Expected community benefits - At least 2 rationale why supporters might favor it - At least 2 rationale why others might oppose it - Their personal position and reasoning ##### Votes are Public Record including: - Support or opposition - personal Resource Commitments: - Labor Commitment (hours/week beyond your community commitment) - Financial Commitment ($) - Expertise Contribution (specific skills/knowledge offered) - acceptance of outcome - Accept outcome and community costs - Cannot accept opposing outcome - Implementation Input - Support reasoning (selected from categories) - Opposition reasoning (selected from categories) - Implementation suggestions/alternatives - Documentation - Qualifying AI dialogue transcript showing proposal understanding #### Goals - the primary goal is `consensus`, for the community to have a shared decision on key issues where everyone's concerns are addressed and passion/talents are effectively utilized - ideally >90% implementation agreement and > 95% core agreement - 5 minute proposal comprehension making civic participation is simple and quick #### Thresholds And Requirements | vote type | trigger | support required | examples | notes | | ------------------------ | ----------- | ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | | constitutional amendment | 1/3 members | 75% | basic needs definitions, member rights/responsibilities, governance structure changes | 90-day cooling period | | project proposal | 1/3 members | 75% | new facilities/systems, major renovations | requires qualified lead | | member removal | 1/3 members | 95% | | requires prior mediation | | member addition | 1/3 members | 75% | | requires onboarding process | | general proposal | 1/3 members | 50% | process improvements, community activities | community improvements |