Re: electing multiple people
* Russ Allbery <email@example.com> [071009 11:23]:
> It's not about opinions. It's about people. The problem most often
> materializes when there are heated opinions, but the fundamental problem
> is when people can't work together with mutual respect. If you end up
> with people who intensely dislike each other, the group will have an
> exceedingly hard time reaching consensus on anything.
> It's one of those sorts of landmine situations where it looks like it
> works fine up until the point where there's a major problem that provokes
> a lot of heated disagreement, and that's when the body designed to try to
> defuse such situations is most vulnerable to a breakdown of civility and
> willingness to work together among its members.
But if there is such an situation and there is heated disagreement
outside of this body, how would having only one side of that in the body
help? That would only make a body supposed to defuse such a situation
to be weapon for one side and thus could even rise such a problem to
much higher spheres.
Thus I think something more proportional is better than something more
cloneful. Unless someone comes up with an idea for a system where anyone
disliked stronly by a reasonable large minority cannot become elected at
all. (and that system is not vulnerable to tactical voting, which I
think it most likely would be as there is no way to let people honestly
distinguish between "I dislike" and "I like the other side better").
Bernhard R. Link