User:Peter Schmitt/Election

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Voting system

The following rules try to make sure that only candidates that receive a sufficiently large basic support get elected. As a consequence, they risk that some positions get not filled.

1. Voting: Citizens are asked to list -- in order of preference -- all candidates whom they approve (and only those).
2. Approval threshold: In a first step all candidates are removed from the ballot who have not gained minimum support (say 10 percent)

The threshold is to be calculated from the number of Citizens participating.

Perhaps a higher value (33 percent?) is better -- if substantial support is wanted.

1. Election result: From the remaining ballot the election result is determined as an ordered list by a preference system.

If the preference order is only used to resolve ties this implies that the order is taken less seriously. Certainly a possibility.

If there are many ties it is probably simpler to run the evaluation program only once.

1. Elected members and reserve members: Vacant seats are filled according to the ordered election result.
2. Shortage of candidates: In case the list of elected candidates is exhausted members may be determined (if feasible) by an additional election from which previously non-approved candidates are excluded.

Candidates who have not gained sufficient support should not be appointed. Ideally, the vacancies will be filled in a second election.

Obviously, candidates who were rejected the first time should not be allowed to run again. (They may run in the next regular election, of course.)

If not enough Citizens volunteer or receive support then the Council will have to be left incomplete.

1. Incomplete Council: If insufficiently many candidates get elected a Council may remain incomplete. If the number of its members falls below the quorum, all decisions have to be unanimous.

In case of a Council below quorum: Perhaps the ME and/or the other Council (as a body) should be given veto power.

I would at most allow the ME to take a vacant seat, not members of the other Council. Official should not serve in two positions.

This is the draft for a suggested referendum and may need revision. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Comments

1. The meaning of a preference system probably has to be spelled out here -- at least in summary form
2. The approval threshold would be better formulated only as a requirement and not a "step". 10% of what exactly? The number of ballots cast, or the total number of votes cast? (they are different). I would advise number of ballots: was it typically 60 last time? Probably it will be fewer now.
3. I do not like the "incomplete council" provisions at all. How about "borrowing" an EC member for emergency purposes, for a maximum of 3 months?

Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:40, 3 May 2011 (CDT)

I think that it may be simple and practicable to a) rank candidates by approval votes received and b) use preferences to resolve ties. (Most ties could be resolved by removing all names from the ballot except tied candidates.) There is perhaps a problem with an approval threshold much below 50% (which I think all elected candidates exceeded that at the last election), because there's no balancing way to register strong disapproval.Gareth Leng 08:04, 4 May 2011 (CDT)

I intentionally did not (yet) specify more than "a preference system" -- if the idea gets support we can discuss the best way, or we could even leave it open.

As for the approval threshold: 20 percent may be to small, but the last election is not a good model: It was recommended to send in ordered lists of all candidates, thus we cannot draw conclusions.

--Peter Schmitt 14:59, 4 May 2011 (CDT)