FW: [wg-review] co-chair election system

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

seconded
Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Chris McElroy
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:27 PM
To: david@farrar.com
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] co-chair election system


Excellent answer to the question and a good solution here IMO. Would nayone
second a motion to adopt this procedure as described here. And that possibly
David handle it since he seems to understand the process well enough.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: <david@farrar.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] co-chair election system


> > 2. it is perhaps's a little bit late, but we have a co-Chair election to
> > carry and nominations to accept or refuse. To that end I think necessary
to
> > know what is the election system retained. We are supposed to proceed by
> > consensus. You determined that you accepted a consensus by 51%, other
said
> > that we had to have 2/3rd. So will the co-chair be the Member getting
the
> > highest number of votes or should we use a more secure system as having
a
> > second ballot among the two Members getting the largest number of vice
in a
> > first ballot?
>
> In New Zealand the conventional way of dealing with multiple candidates
for a
> sole position is preferential voting where people rank their candidates
from
> 1st to last.  It is a very easy system to use for voters, albeit somewhat
> challenging for vote counters but there are excel spreadsheets which can
do
> this easily.
>
> Basically a candidate gets elected when they get 50% + 1 of the vote.  If
no
> candidate gets this then the lowest polling candidate drops off and their
votes
> are redistributed to their next preference.  This continues until someone
makes
> 50%+1.
>
> This avoids the situation where say four candidates stand and say one gets
> elected by 26% of the vote because the vote against that person was split
> between three similiar candidates.  It is not only fairere for the voters
but
> also for the victor as they get a stronger mandate and can not be
undermined by
> suggestions they only had minority support.
>
> DPF
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html