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

[david@farrar.com]

> Excellent answer to the question and a good solution here IMO. Would anyone
> 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.

I'm happy to document the counting procedure if the WG wants to use this as a 
method of election.  However is Joop's polling booth able to handle people 
ranking rather than just voting for a candidate?

DPF

> ----- 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