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

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

Jonathan Zittrain wrote:

> I've probably missed it amidst the sea of list emails and announcements; do
> you have a particular "single transferable vote" proposal and description
> up anywhere?

Yes.  We have discussed this at length.  Anthony Van Couvering
posted a bunch of URLs last week.  Please check the archive. 

> >electing all seats at the same time;
> I'd worry that this could be worse than a three-at-a-time replacement--a
> single "captured" electorate (imagine a bunch of last-minute registrations
> thanks to an intense membership sign-up and voting drive by a single
> interest)

We covered this a couple of weeks ago, as well.  You may recall
the exchange with Dan Steinberg.  I will repost something on this.

>  could replace the whole at-large half of the board in one swoop, no?
No.  As previously discussed, that is more of a concern in
plurality (or majority) take all systems which are commonly used
in the United States, not in proportionate representation systems.
It is critical that you understand this distinction before making
any decisions.  In proportionate representation systems, all major
candidates/interests continue to be represented through succeeding
elections despite swings in the electorate.  Change occurs at the
bottom of the ladder.  The major players and parties may change
relative position on the ladder, but do not fall off.  You
probably noticed this characteristic of parliamentary systems.  I
have suggested that this proposition be examined in more depth.

BTW, do you agree or disagree that we will get greater diversity
on the board if we elect more positions at a time under a
proportionate representation system?