|
|
| 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.
|