[maemo-community] Election process referendum
From: Dave Neary dneary at maemo.orgDate: Mon Feb 2 17:31:06 EET 2009
- Previous message: Election process referendum
- Next message: Election process referendum
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
hi, Andrew Flegg wrote: > I'm still not convinced about giving the outgoing council so much > control, and don't want to have these debates *every* 6 months as to > what the current council should instigate for the next election. > > So would suggest: > > 1) No change; the current process ("first-five-past-the-post") is fine. > 2) A single-transferrable vote system. (Wording TBD) > 3) A reweighted range voting system. (Wording TBD) > 4) Giving the outgoing council the decision before each election. (Wording > TBD). > 5) None of the above. I think 5 choices is too many. Let's try and get a feel, through debate, for whether the community feels the need to safeguard against possible future abuses of the council, and if there's no need for a safeguard then let's propose what I suggest. If the community feels there is a need to codify this (to avoid future debates every election, or to protect against Mugabe-type counting systems) then let's propose a 3 choice election: STV, RRV, no change. >> The constitution should be, IMHO, a framework document, not operating >> instructions. Let's just specify a preferential voting system (which, by >> my reading, is possible within the current council guidelines), and let >> the council decide what to do in practice, after consultation. > > To clarify, your reading of "The 5 nominees with the most votes are > elected" allows "most" and "votes" to be a total number of votes > counted by an arbitrarily-different system, rather than the highest > number of ballots cast? That's correct. I read "the most votes" to mean the most votes under whatever counting procedure is chosen. > What do other people think? Certainly not the intention, but it seems > - as a community - the most vocal (at least) don't mind suspending the > constitution when it befits (e.g. at the last election). The last election was a little exceptional :) I'm not in favour of ignoring the constitution - as I say, I think that it should codify the minimum of things, and never ever get in the way of the council functioning well. I have a morbid fear of excessive bureaucracy & biannual referenda. I don't want us turning into the Swiss (with apologies to Swiss people) :) Cheers, Dave. -- maemo.org docsmaster Email: dneary at maemo.org Jabber: bolsh at jabber.org
- Previous message: Election process referendum
- Next message: Election process referendum
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]