On 17 September 2012 23:57, Deryck Chan <deryckc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James, > > "Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under > Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors > shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a > tie, a teller shall draw lots prior to announcing the result. The > announcement of the results shall include a statement indicating which of > the elected candidates are required to retire at the next Annual General > Meeting." > > This is not the spirit of STV/ERS97. The algorithm produces a strict order > of preference (ie. order of election) of the candidates, which we should > use to determine who gets a longer term. > > (Ref: ERS97 5.1.7: Considering each candidate in turn in descending order > of their votes, deem elected any candidate whose vote equals or exceeds (a) > the quota[...]) > Actually, having thought about it, I'm not at all sure that is the case. It doesn't follow, for instance, that the "first" elected candidate would be the AV winner. Arguably the consistent solution would be to recount the election for the smaller number of winners.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
