Re: [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director
At 08/12/2009 05:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
..... Then there was the oft-repeated mantra that "the first vote is from the heart, the second vote is from the head". I guess I'm not sophisticated enough to see why every vote shouldn't also be done with the consent of the small intestine and adrenal gland.
Well, no one said it was a good thing, but rather that is how some people (or societies) tend to do things.
While details of the hybrid were evasive, the discussion suggested a first round based on an ordered vote to narrow a large field down to two or three, then one or two FPTP rounds would determine the 50%+1 winner.
I freely admit that I am one of the Luddites who doesn't agree with STV being used in this case for reasons I have already explained. What I didn't understand is why there was a conviction that there will be a huge multiplicity of candidates. We have already spent a fair amount of time defining a nomination and vetting process which should produce a small number of candidates. If we end up with 8 or 9 or 10, that process has dismally failed! Alan
2009/12/8 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
What I didn't understand is why there was a conviction that there will be a huge multiplicity of candidates.
We have already spent a fair amount of time defining a nomination and vetting process which should produce a small number of candidates. If we end up with 8 or 9 or 10, that process has dismally failed!
Actually, we haven't really addressed this at all. We have an understanding that a special Working Group will search for suitable candidates, and that each RALO could add one or two. So ... let's say that the working group puts forward three candidates, and that each RALO adds one of its own. That's eight ... not inconceivable, and not a failure of the process. We haven't really spent any time defining the "vetting" process, which itself will be time consuming regardless of method used. The Monday call ended up being all about voting methods, even though there are still some loose ends to deal with. And that (the vetting process) is the biggest and loosest end.. Since an election itself is a vetting process, perhaps this could be part of the 'hybrid system" Trish suggested in the Monday call: 1) The WG comes up with its candidates 2) The RALOs add theirs (optional) 3) A first vote (ordered, using STV) is held based on this combined list of candidates 4) the top three from this vote stand for a second found 5) a second round is held (using first past the post, votes are for a single candidate) 6) A third (expedited) runoff round is held if the second round does not produce a winner with 50%+1 Personally, I still think that steps 3 to 6 can (and should) be combined into a single STV vote. But if there is real aversion to trusting everything to an ordered vote, perhaps something like the above scenario could satisfy peoples' needs for more than one round and a simple final vote. I still think that there needs to be the ability for the voting individuals to go back to their constituencies (ie, the RALOs, ALSs and individual members) for direction/guidance before the votes. In the above scenario, this would take place in advance of steps 1 and 5. Is this workable? - Evan
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch