On 17 September 2012 23:57, Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"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
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)
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.