Re: [council] Voting on first round

[HiroHOTTA <h.hotta@hco.ntt.co.jp>]

As far as I understand the discussion, I think the first round is 
not necessary as we don't seem to have so many candidates. So, the 
3-rounded-election (one vote in each round, just as Amadeu 
proposed) is thought to be a good mechanism for me. It is very 
straightforward as election mechanism and easy to understand.

Hiro

At 99/09/28 17:59, owner-council@dnso.org wrote:
> Richard Lindsay wrote:
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > I would like to offer an idea to perhaps break the impasse
> > between Raul and Amadeu concerning actually electing
> > someone on the first round of voting.  So far we 12 nominees
> > and only 5 accepted nominations.  I would like to propose
> > that if there are more nominees (accepted) than members
> > voting, that we use the first round of voting to reduce the
> > pool.  If there are less than the number of voting NC reps,
> > if there is a nominee who receives more than 10 votes (and
> > it is not a tie) that we can elect that person.
> 
> Rcihard,
> 
> I don't think there is such impasse. But anyway...
> 
> A) We decided that we wre using the convnetion-style system, whereby,
> as we have three eats to fell and GD to achieve, we were running three
> consecutive elections for each director.
> B) Electing a single director thru this system it is most preferable
> to cast only one vote by each elector. Specially because we decided to
> go thru simple majority (ie, 10 votes) If each electors cast, say,
> three votes, more than one, concretely FIVE naominees can gahter more
> than 10 vots at a single round. 
> C) In such case, we could decide to elect the one with more votes, or
> go for a new round in cse of ties. Nut we should not neglect the fact
> that we would be depriving form election nominees who had aciueved the
> required majority.... Simnply be ause we would be mixing apples with
> pears. Ie, differnt and incompatible electoral systems and constraints.
> D) I was the one proposing a first round with multiple (three) votes.
> The resasons were
> * Alliowing some likely candidates but not $B7f(Birst horses$B7 (Bto gather
> some support and remain in the run for successive elections
> * Poll the NC and show the relative support for each nominee, thereby
> facilitating convergence and shrotening the process
> 
> But, as I have explained, multiple votes and single seat provision
> don't go well toghether. Raul and Dennis have expressed their
> willingness to have a first round $B7w(Bith election$B7.(B Denbnis has changed
> his mind after my explanation. Raul has not. If people really feels
> that they don't want a first round in the situation I described, then
> I withdraw my proposal and we start the elections directly. With one
> vote each, of course. Not three.
> 
> In any cse this will not chnge the elecotral system itself, as this
> was simply a preliminary round. It does not hcange the core or even
> the time schddule already presented. Your proposal, Richard, does,m
> and introduces further complications and assumptions about something
> that is completly our of our contol or even knwoledge until the last
> minute: the real number of nominees.
> 
> Amadeu
>  
----------
Hirofumi Hotta
R&D Strategy Department, NTT