[OSGeo-Discuss] Board Candidate Manifestos: 3 questions
aanderson at amherst.edu
Tue Oct 17 07:48:43 PDT 2017
I provided this reference that I think explains it very well:
I didn’t want to sidetrack the more general discussion here, but I’ll give a schematic overview.
1) The basic idea is that voters rank some or all of the N candidates on the ballot from 1-N. This is a simple process with which we are all familiar, and allows us to express our true preferences without strategic considerations such as fear of spoiler candidates.
2) The vote-counting is more complicated but can be easily calculated on computers. All first-place votes are counted, and any candidates are elected that reach a threshold fraction of the vote (which depends on the number of seats). Any votes beyond the threshold are then transferred to voters’ second choices rather than being allowed to pile up for these candidates and thereby be “wasted”. If seats remain to be filled after this, the candidate with the least number of votes is dropped and their votes are transferred to their voters’ lower-ranked choices, and the process begins again, until all seats are filled.
The result in multi-candidate elections is effectively proportional representation because even candidates without initial majority support may pick up support with each round. Those candidates will reflect minority interests such as those of the Rest of the World (and/or others), and bring their perspectives to the board for discussion. Right now with our at-large system a majority block of voters can elect every member of the board to the exclusion of others.
RCV is used in many places such as Ireland and Australia, as well as in many cities such as Cambridge, Massachusetts (since 1941!), and in many organizations such as the Academy Awards.
> On Oct 17, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Dirk Frigne <dirk.frigne at geosparc.com> wrote:
> What do you mean by RCV/PR?
> not clear for me.
> On 17-10-17 15:12, Jeff McKenna wrote:
>> Interesting Andy, I can see how that RCV/PR/ranking could help better
>> representation from our local chapters. I think after the dust settles
>> on this election, we should all then take a deep breath and sit back and
>> analyze this 2017 election process, and together (as Charter members)
>> make a proposal for future elections - I'd prefer to see this proposal
>> happen in the next month, while it is still fresh in all of our minds -
>> Andy it would be great to have your input on this.
>> PS. happy to be a part of the OSGeo animal kingdom (reference to the
>> video in Andy's link ha)
>> On 2017-10-17 9:47 AM, Andy Anderson wrote:
>>> So I could make this a fourth question. What are the candidates
>>> perspectives on using RCV/PR to increase representation from The Rest
>>> of the World?
>>> — Andy
>>>> On Oct 16, 2017, at 11:23 PM, Andy Anderson <aanderson at amherst.edu
>>>> <mailto:aanderson at amherst.edu>> wrote:
>>>> We should consider using ranked-choice voting with proportional
>>>> representation  instead of the current at-large system of electing
>>>> the board. It will ensure majority rule but also provide
>>>> representation of larger minority interests.
>>>> — Andy
>>>>  http://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation#ranked_choice_voting_pr
>>>>> On Oct 16, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Ravi Kumar
>>>>> <manarajahmundry2015 at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:manarajahmundry2015 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> "1 Board member from every continent"
>>>>> Representation from the (rest of) World on OSGeo Board.. This was
>>>>> discussed several times earlier..
>>>>> The would be incumbents, may tilt and give us a solution in the near
>>>>> Ravi Kumar
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> Yours sincerely,
> ir. Dirk Frigne
> CEO @geosparc
> Geosparc n.v.
> Brugsesteenweg 587
> B-9030 Ghent
> Tel: +32 9 236 60 18
> GSM: +32 495 508 799
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss