Re: [ga] List rules

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 12:39 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>The recent messages from two of our members reminded me that we need to get 
>a formal vote according to the approved voting rules on the list rules.
>
>I would like the GA to consider adopting the current rules, with the 
>following changes:
>
>- There are 3 list monitors, not one. Any two of them can take action.
>- The list monitors are elected by the GA electorate using Instant Runoff 
>Voting.
>[snip]

	Not to make trouble, but . . . 

	I'm a big fan of IRV for elections of a *single* candidate.  Its utility
is a lot less clear when one is electing multiple candidates in a single
vote, as the excellent discussion in
<http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/electoral_systems.htm#majoritorian> makes
plain.  In a context like this, any number of simpler systems, including
approval voting, would work adequately.  (Approval voting is what we do
when the ga nominates candidates for ga chair or ICANN director -- every ga
member gets to endorse as many candidates as he likes.  Instead of passing
the resulting list to the NC, though, we would just take the three people
with the most endorsements.)

	I'm leaving to one side the question of whether we want to have list
monitors at all.  Nor is it clear to me that more than three people will
actually want to *run*, in a contested election, for that job -- my
suspicion is that in the typical case, the chair will talk three reluctant
people into it, and those three will run uncontested in a pro forma election.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html