Re: [wg-review] co-chair election system

[david@farrar.com]

> 2. it is perhaps's a little bit late, but we have a co-Chair election to 
> carry and nominations to accept or refuse. To that end I think necessary to 
> know what is the election system retained. We are supposed to proceed by 
> consensus. You determined that you accepted a consensus by 51%, other said 
> that we had to have 2/3rd. So will the co-chair be the Member getting the 
> highest number of votes or should we use a more secure system as having a 
> second ballot among the two Members getting the largest number of vice in a 
> first ballot?

In New Zealand the conventional way of dealing with multiple candidates for a 
sole position is preferential voting where people rank their candidates from 
1st to last.  It is a very easy system to use for voters, albeit somewhat 
challenging for vote counters but there are excel spreadsheets which can do 
this easily.

Basically a candidate gets elected when they get 50% + 1 of the vote.  If no 
candidate gets this then the lowest polling candidate drops off and their votes 
are redistributed to their next preference.  This continues until someone makes 
50%+1.

This avoids the situation where say four candidates stand and say one gets 
elected by 26% of the vote because the vote against that person was split 
between three similiar candidates.  It is not only fairere for the voters but 
also for the victor as they get a stronger mandate and can not be undermined by 
suggestions they only had minority support. 

DPF

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html