Re: [council] Expert Advice on Elections Process - and Formal Amendment

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

Nigel,

Yes:

> 
> The information for the call is as  follows:
> 
> Date:		Wednesday, Sep. 15, 1999
> StartTime:	9:00 a.m. EST
> # of Ports:	19
> Duration :	2 Hours
> 
> VNET:		XXXXXXXXXX
> TOLL-FREE:	XXXXXXXXXX
> TOLL:		XXXXXXXXXX
> PCODE:	XXXXXXXXXX
> 

Dennis

Date sent:      	Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:13:53 +0200
From:           	Nigel Roberts <nigel@roberts.co.uk>
Subject:        	Re: [council] Expert Advice on Elections Process - and Formal Amendment
To:             	"Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie" <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>
Copies to:      	"Names Council (E-mail)" <council@dnso.org>

> Adminstrative detail:
> 
> Have the details for the next teleconference been circulated yet??
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis Jennings wrote:
> 
> > Dear Names Council,
> >
> > I asked Fay Howard to discuss the election process proposed by Javier with
> > the UK Electoral Reform Society, and the expert view provided by Mr. Simon
> > Hearn is that it is not a sound process and could lead to unrepresentative
> > results.  In particular the requirement for a confirmation vote in order to
> > meet the 50% rule could result in the candidate with the highest number of
> > votes being summarily eliminated (not that this is intended, of course).
> >
> > The advice is to use a Single Transferable Vote.
> >
> > The Electors (19 voters at this time) list their candidates in order of
> > preference - 1, 2, 3 etc.  (Even I can do that).
> >
> > The person with the highest number of first preferences (No. 1s) gets seat
> > A, provided they get the required quota of votes (19 seats divided by 3 + 1
> > - i.e. 5 votes).  Other candidates from the winner's region are then
> > eliminated and their votes redistributed for
> > the next stage, in the usual way and so on.
> >
> > If nobody reaches the quota on the first count, which is more than likely
> > if there are many candidates, the candidate with the least votes is
> > eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed, and this proceeds
> > repeatedly until someone passes the quota mark.
> >
> > Once a person is elected to Seat A, their surplus of votes is redistributed
> > according to the next preferences indicated on the votes cast for them.
> >  The next person past the quota get seat B - after which candidates from
> > seat B winner's region are also eliminated for the next round and their
> > votes redistributed (always providing there are candidates from other
> > regions).  Etc.
> >
> > It may sound complicated, but a simple program gives the results
> > immediately.
> >
> > This method is fair, guarantees that the preferences of all the voters are
> > taken into account, and definitely gives a geographically diverse outcome.
> >  It is also a standard process, and can be objectively scrutinised by an
> > independent expert.  It is also understood to be sound, PROVIDED that the
> > geographically diverse elimination mechanism is well publicised in advance
> > and is clear to all the voters (in this case the NA members - so this is
> > not an issue)
> >
> > To meet the 50% rule, I suggest that we add the following.  On completion
> > of the voting and elections as described above, a ratification vote is held
> > - i.e. the result is voted on the by Names Council, each member having one
> > vote.  To ratify the election, the result must receive approval by 50% of
> > the votes cast.  If the result fails this test, a new election is held.
> >  (This provides a useful final confirmation (or rejection) process).
> >
> > Now, I would be very happy to have input from any other organisation with
> > recognised election expertise in order to provide us with an alternative
> > mechanism.
> >
> > However, I suggest we proceed as follows:
> >
> > Announce the election, with a detailed time scale (we probably need a
> > little more discussion on this), etc. (Tomorrow ?)
> >
> > Take the next 7 days to finalise the election process. (unless we can agree
> > to the above).
> >
> > Publish the election process at the end of next week (the 23rd) so that
> > everyone knows where we are.
> >
> > I would also like to see an explicit reference in the announcement to the
> > expectation that each Constituency will advise their Names Council members.
> >
> > Lastly, I would like to insist that the election ballot is SECRET, not
> > public.  A public ballot completely distorts the process because people
> > vote as they think the observers think they ought to vote, not according to
> > their preferences.  The voting details can be published of course, but not
> > the voters names.
> >
> > Please consider the above a formal motion to amend Javier's proposal.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Dennis
> 


-------------------------------------------------------
Dennis M. Jennings
Director, Computing Services, University College Dublin.
Address:  Daedalus Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
E-mail:  Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie
Telephone:  +353-(1) 706 7817
Fax:        +353-(1) 706 2362