Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process
  • Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 13:28:47 -0500

On Apr 06, flux [flux AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> From http://sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Voting_Policy:
> ??? Votes require a simple majority (greater than 50% of all votes cast)
> to pass.
>
> If what is in parentheses is interpreted literally, then a vote in which
> there are 3 candidates and 20 votes total would require that one
> candidate receive 11 of the votes, leaving 9 to be divided among the
> other 2, in order to be elected. In my opinion, that's a (potentially)
> landslide victory rather than a simple majority. I believe what's in
> parentheses is meant as an example, in which case we should clarify the
> language to indicate that it needs to be greater than 50% for 2
> candidates. If it is not just an example and all candidates need greater
> than 50% of all votes cast to be elected, then lots of luck to the 3
> candidates running for Grimiore Lead...

Simple majority is always majority of votes cast. You don't have a
minority electing someone for all, no matter how many candidates are
splitting the vote.

Some systems use a runoff process to deal with this, which can either drop
candiates as it progresses or just keep running until people change votes
and someone gets a majority (dark horse scenario). We instead allow IRV,
so you actually vote yes/no/abstain for *each* candidate, ranking them if
you want, and your votes can transfer from one to the other until someone
hits a majority.

Attachment: pgpBGkoGooq37.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page