Re: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin <email@example.com> 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
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
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>