Eric Weisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>> I've probably missed it amidst the sea of list emails and announcements; do
>> you have a particular "single transferable vote" proposal and description
>> up anywhere?
> Yes. We have discussed this at length. Anthony Van Couvering
> posted a bunch of URLs last week. Please check the archive.
>>
>> I'd worry that this could be worse than a three-at-a-time replacement--a
>> single "captured" electorate (imagine a bunch of last-minute registrations
>> thanks to an intense membership sign-up and voting drive by a single
>> interest) could replace the whole at-large half of the board in one swoop,
>> no?
>>
> No. As previously discussed, that is more of a concern in
> plurality (or majority) take all systems which are commonly used
> in the United States, not in proportionate representation systems.
> It is critical that you understand this distinction before making
> any decisions. In proportionate representation systems, all major
> candidates/interests continue to be represented through succeeding
> elections despite swings in the electorate. Change occurs at the
> bottom of the ladder. The major players and parties may change
> relative position on the ladder, but do not fall off. You
> probably noticed this characteristic of parliamentary systems. I
> have suggested that this proposition be examined in more depth.
> BTW, do you agree or disagree that we will get greater diversity
> on the board if we elect more positions at a time under a
> proportionate representation system?
The country where I live uses proportionate representation to elect
our rulers. And I would not like to trade that for a winner-takes-
all system. In the previous election, I voted for a small left-wing
party. That party got +/- 7 percent of the votes and now has +/- 7
percent of the seats in parliament.
In the USA such a party would not even get off the ground. The USAians
are stuck with a monopoly of the demopublican pork party. I think that
using a winner-takes-all system for elections within the DNSO or ICANN
would be a mistake.
Regards,
--
Onno Hovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"We'd better jump under the bandwagon before the train leaves the station."
-- Dilbert's Boss
