Re: electing multiple people
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:48:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.
That argument makes sense for technical groups, where accomplishing a
clearly defined task is the primary mission, but this is supposed to be
the basis for electing the first ever social committee, which doesn't have
a straightforward mission (or at least, we're inventing the mission ad hoc :).
If the underlying social group is indeed divided into two proportionate
major factions who are in conflict with each other, then that is who should
be in the social committee in order to fairly represent the voting body.
And at the same time, if the voters think that there are two minor factions
with a conflict that doesn't interest the voters, and they are minor, they
will (hopefully) not vote for them so they won't get elected.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.