[EM] electing a variable number of seats

[Padraig Delgado]

Hi Charlie,

In terms of improving proportionality why not keep this system (which I feel is 
not a bad one for electing a smallish board) why not introduce specific seats 
reserved for specific groups, for instance you could say that a minimum of 50% 
of seats are reserved for women so for example if 8 candidates achieve more than 
50%+1 but only 3 of the winning candidates are women, then only 6 seats can 
actually be filled. Of course this raises issues, but if your organisation has 
already accepted that proportionality is important enough to dictate the 
election system then I don't see the problem.

Paddy.





________________________________
From: Charlie DeTar <cfd at media.mit.edu>
To: jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Sent: Fri, 18 February, 2011 0:38:44
Subject: Re: [EM] electing a variable number of seats

On 02/17/2011 07:21 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
> Charlie
> I see two problems here.
> 
> 1.  You do not give the conditions under which the constitution of this 
>organisation allows the number of board members to be
> varied.
> 
> 2.  More importantly, someone needs to define the purpose of this election a 
>great deal better.  Who would have the power to add one
> extra winner with a view to "improving representation" and who would decide 
>what "improved representation" might be?  And just who
> exactly would have the power to reduce the number elected board members with a 
>view to "eliminating polarizing candidates" and who
> would decide that the last winner was a "polarizing candidate" who should be 
>excluded?

Valid points.  Currently, the bylaws allow between 5 and 9 board
members.  The current process is that each member is voted on
individually by simple majority of the voting members of the
organization.  With this process, it's clear when the number changes: if
only 5 candidates receive 50+% of the vote, there are only 5 board
members; if 9, then there are 9.  There is not currently any defined
process for what happens when (a) fewer than 5 people receive 50% of the
vote, or (b) more than 9 people do; in the history of the organization
it hasn't happened.  This is one aspect in which the current system is
broken

I share your concerns with allowing an individual to have the authority
to define when to grow or shrink the board.  However, if there were a
voting system that could quantify questions like how well the electorate
is represented, or whether a candidate is polarizing, the system could
select the mix of candidates which would produce an optimal score
according to those metrics.  If my language here sounds more like it
comes from a machine learning world, that's because that's closer to my
experience.

Thanks very much Markus and others for the sources and recommendations,
I'll look into those.

best,
Charlie
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110218/9a29a9b0/attachment-0003.htm>