Re: Anonymous Voting Referendum
- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
- Cc: James Henstridge <james jamesh id au>, foundation-list gnome org, Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>
- Subject: Re: Anonymous Voting Referendum
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:13:57 -0400
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2004-09-13 at 15:50, James Henstridge wrote:
> > Usually proportional representation is used to describe a system where
> > the number of seats each party gets is proportional to the number of
> > people who voted for them (so if 10% of voters vote for party X, then
> > party X gets 10% of the seats).
> > Since each candidate in the foundation election is an independent and
> > can win at most one seat, I don't really think proportional
> > representation applies here.
> If anything the EU suggests that the basic party based form is the worst
> possible case for the foundation. Party lists mean that whoever is top
> of the list is sure of a cushy job, whoever is bottom isn't going to.
> The result of this is that nobody dares stand against their party even
> when they know the party is wrong, because they will be moved down the
> list next election and punished for it.
> The foundation people stand and are elected for their views not their
> employer so we don't want such lists IMHO.
Historically the foundation elections were supposed to be slate based
but this got turned down, one thing is sure I don't want to go back and
I don't understand how proportional representation can apply when votes
are going to individuals (no, we can't have 2/3rd of Nat and 1/3rd of
Miguel on the board :-)
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
veillard redhat com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
] [Thread Prev