|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 139 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 8 of 139:
| 
Dec 16 23:51 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 139:
|
Dec 17 00:01 UTC 2001 |
It's kind of a recognition that public opinion is too close to call, and
yet we need to pick someone. Lots of state and local governments resort
to games of chance when elections are tied. The NFL does the same when
teams are still tied for a playoff spot even after going through a long
list of possible tie-breakers.
|
jp2
|
|
response 10 of 139:
|
Dec 17 00:08 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 11 of 139:
|
Dec 17 00:23 UTC 2001 |
One example can be found in a recent election in Fife Lake Township,
Michigan. You may read about it at http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/
stories/12/11/fife.township/ or by searching for the township supervisor
election. An additional example can be found in the candidate selection
process of the Ann Arbor Libertarian Party, although such an example is
agovernmental for a number of reasons.
While one could support declaring a practice undemocratic by referring
to an accepted definition, it would not be as easy to so when declaring
a practice immoral without providing the context of morality. Perhaps
Jamie would enlighten the rest of us as to why chance would be immoral,
and further express why others should agree with him, as I suspect any
decision on this matter is likely to be decided by more than one person.
As an aside, I recognize this particular dilemma could be resolved by
one person, although I would not encourage such a solution, and hope that
neither Sylvia nor Greg make such a decision.
|
carson
|
|
response 12 of 139:
|
Dec 17 00:31 UTC 2001 |
As an addendum, I would like to note that New Mexico routinely decides
tie elections with a game of chance. Such games have included a coin
flip, drawing the high card, and a game of poker.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 139:
|
Dec 17 00:52 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 14 of 139:
|
Dec 17 01:53 UTC 2001 |
Your correction of spelling is noted. Perhaps you might find time to
reply to the substance of my comments, providing you have substance
to add.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 15 of 139:
|
Dec 17 01:55 UTC 2001 |
I know of one school board election in Ann Arbor that was tied and
decided by a coin toss. I believe there was also a County Commissioner's
seat that was decided that way, but it may have been a second school
board seat. dpc, gelinas, polygon?
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 139:
|
Dec 17 02:08 UTC 2001 |
My preference for modifications:
Bylaw mod as opposed to policy.
No more delay than necessary before runoff begins.
If runoff results in a tie, the three current board officers will vote
again within 48 hours to make the final determination. (This will
require a minor mod to the vote program.) If the board vote results in
another tie (3-way), then the rest of the board will vote to determine
the outcome.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 17 of 139:
|
Dec 17 02:11 UTC 2001 |
My preference for modifications:
No more than 24 hour delay before runoff begins.
If runoff results in a tie, a coin is tossed. Winner gets the seat.
|
other
|
|
response 18 of 139:
|
Dec 17 02:17 UTC 2001 |
That'll work if there are only two tied candidates.
|
jp2
|
|
response 19 of 139:
|
Dec 17 02:19 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 20 of 139:
|
Dec 17 02:20 UTC 2001 |
Ok, then use those funny game=playing dice. I'll bet I can find a die
that has either the same number of sides as we have tied candidates, or
twice as many sides as we have tied candidates. Heck, I'll even donate
my dice collection for the task.
|
jp2
|
|
response 21 of 139:
|
Dec 17 02:21 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 139:
|
Dec 17 03:14 UTC 2001 |
I specified Officers (Chair, Treasurer, Secretary) in order both that
additional ties be avoided, and that the determination be made
expediently.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 23 of 139:
|
Dec 17 03:21 UTC 2001 |
In 1997, Diane Hockett and Ann Lyzenga were tied for the third open seat on
the Ann Arbor Board of Education, behind Bill Browning and Nick Roumel. Ms.
Hockett and Ms. Lyzenga met with the County Clerk in her office, where they
drew slips of paper from a hat. One was marked something like "Elected" and
the other was marked "Not Elected." Ms. Hockett drew the "elected" slip and
served another three years on the school board.
|
janc
|
|
response 24 of 139:
|
Dec 17 04:33 UTC 2001 |
So say "selected by die roll or coin flip".
Hmm. Is there a finite procedure that will chose between 3 people using a
series of coin flips? You could have each person flip a coin. If they
all come up with the same value, they all flip again. If they are not all
alike the result will be HHT or THH. The person with the unique result wins.
In practice this is fine, in theory it might not terminate. I'm inclined to
doubt that a totally fair finite procedure exists.
|
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.
|