Re: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> writes:
> 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 :).
Hm, my experience is that this is *way* more important for social groups
than it is for technical groups. Now, if one is electing essentially a
legislature, where each member is expected to vote and work independently,
it's not as big of a problem. But if the group is ever expected to work
by consensus or common ground, this sort of voting system is, IMO, a huge
problem.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: