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

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I think I can help Joop get that to happen. No guarantees though.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: david@farrar.com [mailto:david@farrar.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 8:08 PM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] co-chair election system
> 
> 
> > 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
> 
--
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