My latest (and hopefully final) observations: - I am swayed by those who prefer the original wording of #4. - The "independence" rationale against changing #4 is without merit (and insulting to the integrity of the voters), though other valid reasons exist - In a "votes are visible throughout the poll" scheme, more weight of influence may be unduly given to those who vote fastest with an intent to sway. Mid-poll is not the time to be trying to influence one's peers, that should be done in pre-vote debate. Indeed the most compelling argument against changing #4 is that it would further reduce the motivation for pre-vote discussion and issue awareness. As it is, we already are challenged in this regard - If I feel weak on an issue and want to know the opinion of trusted colleagues, I can do that privately and/or before the vote starts. I don't need to see how they vote during the poll. Better still, there should be open debate where I can hear from everyone on not just how they intend to vote, but why. - Transparency and accountability requirements are sufficiently fulfilled by posting who-voted-how after the results are final (which is what the original #4 already mandates) - In a weak moment, I dream that the level and quality of debate given to this process issue matter might perhaps extend to our policy issues. Cheers, - Evan