Re: Anonymous Voting Referendum

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Daniel Veillard wrote:

> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:13:57 -0400
> From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
> To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
> Cc: James Henstridge <james jamesh id au>,
>      Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>, foundation-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Anonymous Voting Referendum
>
> 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

For the record this is not what I intended at all.

Preferential Voting is what I was suggesting.


Sincerely

Alan Horkan

http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
Inkscape, Draw Freely http://inkscape.org
Free SVG Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org