On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:33:54PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > So, I proposed the following addition to the section A.6. Vote Counting > (part of appendix A Standard Resolution Procedure): > + If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is > + created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength. ... > Is this technically sound? I don't know voting method syntax. Even if you get the wording right for that, it might not be a *sound* method if you're trying to get a representative selection of winners, rather than the 1st best, 2nd best, 3rd best, etc, for whatever people happen to think "best" means. To select "events coordinators", for example, we might want to have five people each on a different continent, even though three of the best events coordinators happen to be in Europe, on the basis that one European, one North American and one South/Latin American would be more useful than three Europeans. Basically, the question is: if you've got, say, five positions, then do you want 20% of people to be able to get together and guarantee one of the positions goes to someone they like, or do you want 51% of people to be able to get together and guarantee that none of the positions go to someone they don't like? The latter's probably more likely to result in a good functioning consensus amongst the elected members, the former's probably more likely to result in (significant) minority views getting representation. It really depends on what you're trying to achieve as to which is better, afaics. > + If there are multiple winners with the same ranking which exceed > + the desired length of the list, the length of the list is extended > + to include the entire last set of multiple winners. > I thought that that made sense. Does it? :) If you've trying to choose four from: 1. Foo 2. Bar 3. Baz 3. Quux 3. Quuux You could: - have more complicated ways of resolving ties to reduce their liklihood - have the elector with the casting vote (DPL usually) choose which of Baz, Quux, Quuux is unlucky - give Baz, Quux and Quuux the opportunity to chat amongst themselves and see if any want to drop out - randomly pick one of Baz, Quux, Quuux as winner - have Baz, Quux and Quuux each have a 2/3rd length term - choose only two candidates instead of four - choose five candidates instead of four Everywhere else we just try to avoid ties, and have the DPL (or similar) break them if necessary. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature