[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Membership] Re:Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?

At 10:55 14/02/99 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote:

>> If we don't slice up our voting members in any way,
>> proportionality does not come into the picture.
>I agree and disagree.  
>I agree that we should not slice up our membership in any way.
>But, I disagree about whether we want proportionality in the
>"Proportionality" is just another term for "reflection of our
>membership's varied interests."  Do you oppose such result in the
>election process we select?  Are you against proportionate

No , I'm not. I'm strongly in favour of proportional representation. We're
differing on the semantics only.  My point is simply that if we do not have
voter's districts (or special interest constituencies) nor parties,
the election of at large Board members can and should reflect the
proportionality of the vote automatically. 

In Jon's words: it's to establish a
neutral voting structure that ensures that interests who get substantial
voting support in the election end up on the Board in proportion to their
support, whoever they turn out to be.

What I would like is a long list of nominees, and multiple transferable
votes on each ballot. The candidates are ranked according to the voters'
approval. (positive or negative)
This sort of electoral system has not been possible so far, because of
processing considerations.
Now, such a superior system is possible.

The term "proportional representation" is typically *NOT* applicable to
situations where the voters are divided up into voting districts, each with
their own candidates, winning the district when they are the "first past
the post". 
As Onno observes, this leads to large blocks of unrepresented voters.

All I'm saying is that we do not need to have such a situation.