Re: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> writes:
> 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.
> + 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.
> Is this technically sound? I don't know voting method syntax.
I think this runs the same risk as the original US Vice Presidential
election system. If you elect the runner-up as part of the same slate as
the winner, you end up with pathological results in a divisive election
with two or more opposing slates. Basically, you end up electing the
leaders of each slate and calling them the winning group, resulting in a
team of people who have sharp disagreements and who may not be able to
work together.
I've had enough bad experiences with committees and groups in the past
that I've developed a deep dislike of voting or nomination systems that
don't take into account the ability of the chosen slate to work with each
other. I'd rather end up with a weaker candidate who can cooperate with
the leading candidate than the two strongest candidates who will then be
at loggerheads.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: