Re: [council] Elections - Open Issues

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>]

One of the things suggested as a disadvantage of STV voting
was that is is complicated. Well, really!

I understand STV voting, and I can explain it in one sentence.

I have tried /really/ hard to understand this proposed system
and I have been /totally/ confused. 

I do have some experience of electoral matters as a candidate for
public election and I cannot understand the implications.

I seriously fear that this system will provide for majority capture and
exclude minority interests. And I suspect that academic analysis by
independent may confirm that view.

It would be extremely unfortunate if the perception was to obtain that
this is in fact the design objective of the proposed voting system.

(I am personally sure, given the great confusion I have seen that this
is NOT the intent, but I am equally sure that it easily may
be perceived by outside observers so to be).

Accordingly, unless I see a simple explanation of the  theory behind
this proposed 'back of envelope' system I shall maintain my formal
objection to its use.



Nigel

Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> At 01:13 AM 26/09/1999 +0200, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >As we are approaching the dealine for commenting the elections
> >proposal, I would like lsiting the remaining open issuses (IMHO).
> 
> RE - Sorry, but what was the deadline to make comments about the comments
> sent just before the deadline ?
> 
> >
> >A) How many votes in the firt round?
> >Does anybody disagree?
> 
> >
> >B) Role of the multiple vote round.
> >
> >This is why no director should be elected thru the first, multiple
> >vote round. Disagreements?
> 
> RE - Yes, I disagree.
> 
> >
> >C) Real elctions rond with one vote per member.
> >
> >For the reasons just explained above, all three "rounds" in order to
> >elect the three directors (probably each one consisitn of multiple
> >voteing rounds) should be follwing the "one vote per member" rule.
> 
> RE - I prefer more than one vote, but If only I disagree, let's go with one
> vote each.
> 
> >
> >D) Nominees eliminated.
> >
> >After the inital round, with three votes per NC member, all candidates
> >with no or ultramarginal support are eliminated "for all successive rounds".
> >
> >This imply indeed the nominees with zero votes. But I suggest that
> >those with only one or two votes be also eliminated. More than that
> >would eliminate cnadidats with some chances, perhaps.
> 
> RE - I agree.
> 
> >
> >Does everybody agree that a candidate with no support or ultramarginal
> >support be eliminated for the three electoral seats= is "less than
> >two" votes out of the 57 total plausible( ie, no more htan two NC
> >members using one of his/her three votes for a fiven nominee).
> 
> RE - I think there is a mistake here. You should say "..... votes out of
> the 19 total plausible" because as far I understand, nobody could get more
> than 19 votes since each NC member votes three DIFFERENT candidates. Is it
> right ?
> 
> >
> >E) GD and first round
> >
> >It very unlikely that after the first, multiple vote round, there are
> >not at lest one candidate form at least three regions. The NC
> >composition , nad the three votes per member, nearly guarantess the contrary.
> >
> >I feel very strongly that candidates with no support should no be
> >elected just because of the GD rule. This is a perversion of GD, not
> >abding to it.
> >
> >
> >In clear: if after the first round only nominees form, say, North and
> >Latin America gets at least two votes, but none of the Euroepan, AOP
> >or African candidates gets such minimal support, we go on with the
> >election of the first and then the second candidate, but NOt to the
> >third, as there would NOT be any suitable candidate.,
> >
> >We just fill two seats, and accaept the shame of being forced to a new
> >call for nominations and election for the third deat (whcih will not
> >be in place for LA, I know). But this is still more sound that
> >electing someone without any real support, even minimal.
> >
> >[I know that this is very, ery unlikely to happen, but we are obliged
> >to have a decision beforehand, just in case]
> >
> >Disagreements?
> 
> RE - Why not to try one or two rounds only with candidates from those
> regions that could apply to this seat ?. In this scenario, electing only
> among those candidates, some of them could get a strong support.
> if not, we have to call for nominations and elections again only to fill
> this seat.
> 
> >
> >F) Telecon with nominees
> >
> >I think that it is a good idea to have a telconf with NC and nominees
> >together. This shuld be done after the inital vote(the one with three
> >votes cast).
> >
> >If this is the cae, the telconf could not be scheduled prior to
> >Tuesday. Then the elction would run until Wednesday. Second seat on
> >Thursday and third seat on Friday. A tight schedule.
> >
> >If there is no telconf with nominees, first director could be elcted
> >between Monday and Tueday, second during Wednesday and Thursday and
> >third during Friday (be aware that each election eliminates all the
> >candidates form the same region as the elected director, so the third
> >round would be the simplest, and fasteest).
> >
> >Do you thin kthat we must have such teleconf, or that is is a bad idea
> >given the tight schedule?
> >
> 
> RE - I'm not against to have teleconference with the nominees, but I really
> think that it will not be necessary because I think that nobody will decide
> her/his vote depending on this teleconference.
> 
> >G) How we met.
> >
> >I believe that it is necessary that we hold a telconf at the beginning
> >of the electorl process. The best place is just after the "polling"
> >round (the one with three votes, where no one is elected and only
> >nominees with marginal support are eliminated). But before the "real
> >start", when we start sending the ballots with one vote in order to
> >select the first director.
> >
> >This means that Monday afternoon (CET)  would be the best time. Except
> >in the case we want a telcon with nomineew, where perhaps we should
> >allow them a further 24 hours in order to be avaialbe for the telecon).
> >
> >In any case, this initial telconf should help clearing all the
> >possible remaining doubts about the process, disucss tha already
> >aviualable list of nominees after the first vote (the one with three
> >votes each), and perhaps disucss the next round.
> >
> >I also beleiver that a telconf during the last voting day, Friday, is
> >absolutely needed in order to make sure we complete the process and
> >solve any occurrance during the elections.
> >
> >Disagreements?
> >
> >The question now is How we meet and vote meanhwile? My suggeton is
> >that we use a combination of e-mail (during and shortly after the
> >teleconfs) combined with telephone for those not able to send mail at
> >that time (there is always someone at an airport...).
> 
> RE - I prefer "shortly after" and not "during"
> 
> >
> >This ias a beginning: telconf and e-mail. But then we should make sure
> >we "meet" the day after in order to complete the election, b the first
> >or second or third seat (for the third seat, the simplest one, we
> >should meet the same day). But how?
> >
> >In my view, the need to meet derives form the fact that we have to
> >make sure that we all will be sinding some (multiple) rounds of votes
> >until we elect a Director prior to a ceratin hour. The problem with
> >pure e.mail, with no previously scheduled defined hours, is that this
> >would take days, not hours.
> >
> >Elisabeth proposes that we schedule a short telconf each day at the
> >usual time. I propsoe to use telconfs on Monday and Firday (f9rst and
> >last day) and, try chat for the rest. It is very likley that elections
> >for the seond and third seat will be hold in only one day, but it is
> >also likely that the first seat will take tow days. Do we want to
> >schedule a teleconf each day?
> >
> >In any case we all should be aware that all NC m,embers should redline
> >at least one hour each day during that week, as multiple votes will be
> needed.
> >
> >My proposal for chat, as I have explained is that allows to check who
> >is present (s teleonfs), allows genral discussion (as teleonfs) and
> >also private discussions (unlke telcnfs). Perhaps telconf plus mail is
> >an equivalent...but less coneient in my vew, and much more expensive ;-))
> 
> RE - YES, you are right !
> 
> >
> >Just a question: are all of you familiar with chatting software?
> 
> RE - Yes, I use mIRC.
> 
> Raul Echeberria
> raul@inia.org.uy