sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process
- From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
- To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 03:47:31 +0900
Jeremy Blosser (jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org) wrote [10.04.06 03:36]:
> 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.
That makes sense to me. To just clarify one further point, if there are
two candidates who receive greater than 50% by way of IRV, it simply
goes to the one with more votes, unless there is a draw, in which case
it's invalid (and we can call for a new vote, etc. after). Is this
correct?
--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
Attachment:
pgpR2svEgivZn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process,
flux, 04/05/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process,
Jeremy Blosser, 04/05/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process,
flux, 04/05/2010
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process, Jeremy Blosser, 04/05/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process,
flux, 04/05/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: clarification of lead voting process,
Jeremy Blosser, 04/05/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.