Re: [atlarge-discuss] web page and election

["Andrew Bloch" <abloch@alum.mit.edu>]

From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:28 PM
> On 09:37 a.m. 11/06/2002 -0400, James Love said:
> >4.     Should we assume that there will be 7 persons elected, under the
same
> >non region approach we took last time?
>
> That is the least complicated. Voters are always free  to support
> candidates based on their region.
>
> >5.    Should we limit the number of votes cast to 3 like last time?
>
> I see that as an unnecessary  limitation of the members' voting rights.
Why
> not seven votes, when we have seven slots.
> Then each voter can vote for his preferred team.

The specific structure and mechanics of voting should be spelled out clearly
in advance of the election (and nominee period).

I've been lurking on this list up until now, but some of you may remember me
from my election status page (still around at www.icannnot.org) during the
ICANN election's member nomination phase.  One of the ideas that the ICANN
election reinforced was the importance for a fair election of a carefully
designed election structure, stated clearly and in advance of the election.
The specifics of the election structure that must be considered include not
just the number of votes and positions, but also the mechanics of voting and
the reporting of results.

The initial ICANN election is a good case study.  (The last presidential
election in the United States would be another good example.;)  In the ICANN
member-nomination phase, voters were limited to a single endorsement, even
though each region could nominated 2 to 5 candidates (depending on region).
That much was explained in advance.  What wasn't explained in advance of the
polls opening was that you could change your endorsement up until the end of
the endorsement period, AND that updated voting results would be released a
few times a day throughout the voting period, which was over 2 weeks long.
The initial rules made it very difficult for nominees to get enough votes to
pass the 2% threshold, but the actual mechanics of voting and reporting of
results made it easier.  I was actually grateful that the results were
reported during the election, and that votes could be changed -- however, it
was unfortunate that this wasn't clear at the start, and could have put some
candidates and voters at a disadvantage.

Another problem with the ICANN nomination phase was the 8-day voting
extension granted mid-election.  My main objection to this extension was
that there were no rules covering extensions in place before the election.
The extension could have been an improper attempt by ICANN to influence the
income, although I agree with the decision to extend IF their reasons were
truthful and impartial.

We can't risk having the same problems with our elections, as ICANN could
point to any hint of impropriety as an excuse for ignoring us.

If we want to take a non-region approach, but still give smaller regions a
chance to elect some candidates, we need to use an appropriate voting system
that lets minority groups pool their votes.  One possibility is to have 7
positions on the ballot, give every voter 7 votes, and allow the voters to
vote more than once for any candidate.  Any minority group that is more than
12.5% of the total number of voters could ensure that they elect one
candidate if they can organize around a single candidate.  To facilitate
this, we can make interim results available during the election and allow
voters to change their ballots.  (We might not have available the right
voting tools for this system, but if we do, we should follow it or something
similar.)

Whatever voting system is chosen, all aspects need be considered, planned,
and publicized in advance.

Andy Bloch



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de