Forum OpenACS Q&A: AV con for multiple-winner

11: AV con for multiple-winner (response to 10)

Posted by Joel Aufrecht on 10/03/03 03:25 PM

Note also: "While AV is a strikingly simple election reform for finding consensus choices in single-winner elections, in elections with more than one winner -- such as for a council or a legislature -- AV would not be desirable if the goal is to mirror a diversity of views, especially of minorities; for this purpose, other voting systems should be considered." (from http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200211/).
I don't think there's an obvious right answer, and I'm no longer worried, if I ever was, about getting this part exactly right. I'm more interested in having high participation, a simple and comprehensible result, and an active new OCT. Tom, I think these your points are very good and we should keep working on the issues and seeing what works.

12: Re: AV con for multiple-winner (response to 11)

Posted by Tom Jackson on 10/03/03 07:21 PM

Joel, I think that is the impression I got. It is simple, mostly directed at getting centrist representation. It isn't really geared for including minority voices in an at large multi winner race.

Probably the simplist way to get half way there is to replace all members at the same time. This also may not be necessary for the following reason: our community is not very large. There are also organizational limits, which otherwise might lead to some kind of ballot box stuffing.

I'm still not conviced that having an election every six months is worth the extra effort. In the end everyone will serve one year terms, but we will have to expend half the effort. Working relationships will need to be adjusted every six months as new members join and have to be 'educated'. But again, this is a small community. Probably anyone elected will already have working relationships with the other members.