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 22:30:19 -0500

On Apr 06, flux [flux AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> 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?

I shouldn't really have said "ranking them if you want"; I'm pretty sure
for IRV we've always required a 1st, 2nd, etc. choice, so you can't have
the scenario where more than one person has a majority.

Attachment: pgpm1feBcNNcI.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page