Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
