[Foundation-l] elections

[Oldak Quill]

On 07/04/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> For myself, if I were to suggest another alternative, is to try and go
> with Instant run-off voting
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting
>
> In other words, there is more than one way to try and weed down a large
> number of candidates to just a few.  Particularly in this case when
> there is going to be a great many candidates for several offices.  I
> will also point out that there are advantages and disadvantages of
> almost any election system, and no single method is really ideal.  The
> main point is that the system needs to be in place and firm before
> anything happens.
>
> I would also try to suggest that multiple rounds of voting are as likely
> to turn people off as anything else.  Some people just love to vote on
> nearly everything possible, but for something this serious we shouldn't
> be appealing to just that kind of Wikimedia user.  I'm referring here to
> things like the picture of the day/week/month/year or other similar
> kinds of contests that regularly use voting.
>
> As far as why I support instant run-off votes:  It allows you to rank
> your preferences instead of merely casting votes.  Far too often in
> things like logo decisions (look at the failed example of the "new"
> Wikibooks logo that has been rejected by all but fi.wikibooks... and
> expressly rejected by en.wikibooks) end up with only the most tolerable
> of a minority, where a few leading candidates come forward out of
> mediocrity but others who might have made a stronger concensus are
> rejected.  Multiple rounds merely test the patience of both voters and
> the candidates.  Certainly two rounds isn't too bad on this end, but it
> does require double the work to put it together compared to just one
> round of voting.
>
> Even this sort of pre-screening that is suggested here is just another
> way to put an extra round into the voting process.  There certainly
> should be some eligibility rules (as there has been in the past) that
> would require disclosure of your name, nationality, and age (needed for
> legal purposes if you actually are elected).  Not everybody would want
> to do this, and that is also understandable.  The screening should
> involve some sort of verification of this identity.  As far as getting
> some public supporters/endorsements of a particular candidate, I would
> be wary of sock puppets and other gaming that could happen, but it does
> sound like a way to demonstrate viability.  This whole thing is a
> popularity contest of a sort anyway, and signing for viability doesn't
> mean you will actually vote for them in the election itself.

This is a problem all democratic real-world legislatures have to deal
None have found a solution (?), so we're not going to. But we should
explore the options and identify the least worse system for our needs.
:)

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)