|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 139 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 139:
| 
Dec 17 04:42 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 26 of 139:
|
Dec 17 05:20 UTC 2001 |
The expected time of the game is finite, so it's really not worth worrying
about. (The probability that the game would still be going on after n
trials is 2^-n).
|
steve
|
|
response 27 of 139:
|
Dec 17 07:25 UTC 2001 |
I'd rather see a runoff election, but the idea of something like a toin
toss isn't bad. I'll take either.
|
richard
|
|
response 28 of 139:
|
Dec 17 16:32 UTC 2001 |
many professional election theorists oppose runoffs on principle. An
election is held within a certain time frame for a reason. Certain
realities and conditions exist at the time of an election. If
subsequently voters are asked to re-vote at a later date, those conditions
have changed. Which may make it unfair to candidates who based their
candidacies on assumptions of what the conditions would be and who they
would be running against on election day. In the NYC mayor's race, the
Democrats lost the race ultimately because they held a runoff. The runoff
changed the conditions of the original election and exacerbated tensions
between constituencies and there wasnt enough time afterwards to mend the
wounds.
In the grex election case, a runoff election would be a one on one contest
between flem and bhelliom. They both ran on the assumption they'd be
among a slate of candidates. It is possible that one of them may have
chosen not to run had they known they might be subject to a runoff, where
voters who didnt vote for them in the first place would have to re-vote
and consider or reject them all over again.
Therefore is a runoff really fair? or would it be more fair for the two
candidates who tied in the voting be presented to the board, and for the
board to make the tie-breaking vote?
And in this case, since non-member votes are tallied anyway, the board
could simply agree to vote for the winner based on what the overrall
totals were including the non-member votes. Which would allow the board
to pick a winner without having to make any real decision.
|
other
|
|
response 29 of 139:
|
Dec 17 17:40 UTC 2001 |
Population dynamics are a primary basis for the above concerns. Those
factors are not significantly important on the scale in which we're
operating.
|
other
|
|
response 30 of 139:
|
Dec 17 17:41 UTC 2001 |
(if my above looks out of place, it's only because since I was responding
to richard, i didn't feel the need to read the whole response, just the
first couple of lines.)
|
richard
|
|
response 31 of 139:
|
Dec 17 17:49 UTC 2001 |
whatever, I still dont think ethically you can make candidates compete
in a runoff if that wasnt stipulated as a possibliity beforehand and it
wasnt. You are changing the conditions under which they originally
agreed to run.
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 139:
|
Dec 17 19:24 UTC 2001 |
There are two issues here: (1) how to resolve the current tie; (2) how
to resolve possible ties in the future. The topic of this item is (2).
I think we're discussing (1) in item 49.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 139:
|
Dec 17 20:27 UTC 2001 |
This might be an argument also for reinstating the old quota rules. Say
that an election shouldnt be certified unless a certain percentage of the
membership has participated. If the polls close and only 20% of the
members have voted and the quota is 35%, you dont announce the results, but
extend the voting period, and inform if there are any ties at that time.
Then you email, and otherwise twist the arms of those members who havent
voted to vote. A quota was a valid idea and it seems like it was voted
to be eliminated purely out of convenience.
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 139:
|
Dec 17 20:33 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 35 of 139:
|
Dec 17 21:15 UTC 2001 |
Or another idea, the membership could address the problem of the
importance of the treasurer's position. The treasurer is clearly the
most important of all the board officers. So there could be
a bylaw amendment to make the treasurer's position a non-voting board
member position appointed by the regular board and thus not subject
to the same term limits as everyonbe else. Aruba would then be appointed
permanent treasurer and non-voting board member for as long as he wants to
be so, and there would be two voting board slots thus open for both bhell
and flem. This solves the current problem and also avoids the board
having to get nervous the next time Aruba's term expires and he cant run
again.
|
jp2
|
|
response 36 of 139:
|
Dec 17 21:41 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 37 of 139:
|
Dec 17 22:26 UTC 2001 |
But what if Aruba does not want to be permanent treasurer?
Also I would be very disappointed if Mark were suddenly to be deprived of his
voting seat on the board, where he does a great job not only as treasurer.
More ideas?
|
pthomas
|
|
response 38 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:07 UTC 2001 |
I think jp2 should be president-for-life!
|
krj
|
|
response 39 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:19 UTC 2001 |
resp:33, 34 :: Bylaws and guidlines such as RRO should always result
in contests leading to a resolution. The problem with a quota
is that it is a mechanism for deadlock.
A vote quota might be vaguely tolerable for member resolutions,
if one accepted that most or all member resolutions would fail.
It would not do, however, to have a Board election repeatedly
fail to deliver a valid result.
|
aruba
|
|
response 40 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:49 UTC 2001 |
Re #36: What's funny about my handwriting?
|
aruba
|
|
response 41 of 139:
|
Dec 18 00:53 UTC 2001 |
I wonder if there's a BBS in some alternate universe where all of richards
ideas get implemented. I'd like to see what happens there. :)
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 139:
|
Dec 18 01:30 UTC 2001 |
Re #28: This is an election in a small group, not for a governorship.
Your theory is interesting, but it *is* just theory, and probably not
important in an election this size.
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 139:
|
Dec 18 01:39 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 44 of 139:
|
Dec 18 02:57 UTC 2001 |
Well, thanks, I guess.
|
spooked
|
|
response 45 of 139:
|
Dec 18 05:12 UTC 2001 |
I never would've guessed Mark was a male... <o:
From long recollection, he has better than average handwriting, especially
for a Mathematician hehe
|
jep
|
|
response 46 of 139:
|
Dec 18 22:52 UTC 2001 |
I don't think richard's ideas are out of line with regard to the
election, at least not the ones he expressed in #28 and #31. Elections
are obviously a long-time interest of his, for one thing; something
he's probably thought more about than a lot of us. Give him his due.
I outlined my preference for a coin-toss in the election item. Maybe I
should copy that response into this item? Basically, it's as fair as
any other method, and much quicker.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 139:
|
Dec 18 23:43 UTC 2001 |
I prefer coin tossage as well.
|
other
|
|
response 48 of 139:
|
Dec 19 05:32 UTC 2001 |
If we were to go with a coin toss, who would be present, who would toss,
and where and when would it be held?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 49 of 139:
|
Dec 19 06:25 UTC 2001 |
In the Election item, someone mentioned lapsed memberships. Do memberships
lapse in the middle of the month?
|