On Apr 28, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > 2010/4/28 Raph Frank <[email protected]> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Juho <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you mean that voters would concentrate on the first rankings and > > strongest candidates? The used method should be such that this kind of > > behaviour will not be rational. > > Yes. If the order of election matters, then your first rank is > effectively for the president's position .. and it is a plurality > election. > > > Minor note: I proposed using order-of-election for vice president, not for > president. > > How about this: Elect the council with STV. Elect the president from the > council with Condorcet. Elect a two-member subset of that council with > PR-STV. Any members of that two-member council who aren't the president are > vice presidents. > > It gives a variable number of vice presidents. However, it seems like a very > fair all-around system, and needs no innovative new methods. > > Or, if you elected a 3-member subset, I suspect it would be very rare that > the president was not in that subset. If she wasn't, and if 3 VPs were too > many, you could then repeat the STV to choose two of those 3, or let the > board elect 2, or let the president pick 2, or eliminate the Condorcet loser > among those 3.
This is, I think, a decent general solution to ordering a set of STV winners: re-count, with only the current winners eligible, for successively smaller numbers of seats. However, as Abd points out, to the extent that the role is internal (board chairman as opposed to external spokesman), it'd be better for the board to elect their own officers. And if the role is both, perhaps it should be split. The more general point is that, whatever the role of President is, it's likely to have different voting criteria from board member, and trying to force the same election to do double duty in electing both is at best questionable policy. > > (I still like my RBV method, and would still be willing to code it > open-source if the Czech greens are interested. But I understand if they want > something more proven.)
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
