|
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2
|
|
Board Run-off elections
| 
Dec 16 17:37 UTC 2001 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 139 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 1 of 139:
|
Dec 16 17:52 UTC 2001 |
A four day voting period is too short given the frequency with which
some members sign on. I for day delay before the tie breaker election
is unnecessarily long.
I'd say the tie-breaker election should run at least a week preferably two
weeks, should start as soon as it can be organized after then vote count
has been finalized, and if the tie-breaker fails to break the tie, then
it is resolved by a coin flip, scrabble game, bowl-off or trivia contest.
If the vote is a tie twice then things are close enough that it doesn't
really matter who gets elected. Endless repetitions of the vote would
eventually break one way or the other, but the resolution would be
essentially random, so resolving it randomly would be just as good,
more fun, and take less time.
|
jp2
|
|
response 2 of 139:
|
Dec 16 17:59 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 3 of 139:
|
Dec 16 18:20 UTC 2001 |
I say we let the BoD make the policy, and not amend the Bylaws.
|
jp2
|
|
response 4 of 139:
|
Dec 16 18:21 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 5 of 139:
|
Dec 16 18:27 UTC 2001 |
Jamie is a member. He can propose by-law amendments. I don't think a well
thought-out bylaw amendment on this topic would do any harm. Probably even
nice to have, if not vital. Hardly a hot topic, but worth discussing.
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 139:
|
Dec 16 22:24 UTC 2001 |
We should have a policy on resolving ties, and a runoff
election is the best way I can think of to do it. As to
the time frame, I'd suggest having a runoff start
immediately -- it takes 15 minutes tops to reconfigure
the vote software and post announcments in places like
the motd -- and have it run for 15 days, just like the
regular election. Then it would be over before December
31, in time for the new board to take office.
Either a non-expiring policy set by the board, or a bylaw
amendment, would establish consistency. The former is simpler
to enact, the latter easier to look up in the future. I
don't feel strongly one way or the other as to which way to
handle it.
I don't see any good reason for opening up a special election
to all comers just because a runoff didn't break a tie, so
I'm opposed to that. It's overkill. If the runoff results
in another tie, settle it by chance (e.g. a coin toss) as
Jan suggests.
|
aruba
|
|
response 7 of 139:
|
Dec 16 23:46 UTC 2001 |
I agree that if the runoff is a tie, we should settle it by chance. And
though I don't imagine two weeks is quite necessary, it we can get it all
done by 12/31, that's fine with me.
|
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.
|