Received: from localhost ([::1]:36878 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3smj-0002eK-MU; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:43:57 -0800 Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]:41201) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3smc-0002e4-Ut for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:43:55 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id pv20so7350151lab.27 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:43:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=r7LfaTvnhzzYCsQwT0yMR45FSiUgkwUQej2D7EFPSo0=; b=cnsozVglf4JlHiIjnlOXEB7LCCMngvZE8ZkrvAaiZwnNm3hoIw7NEHhjyeMS4mZyOS zUR43dmyB0bnXpyy54MTOqcj4ZK3YhiFJfgPCoWVWDoxYfC/S+ig9xabBSIM4eRzm7nb PZlrpZNnWRMUXUwfy+bxpNN3IOcfEpUSOlb1NwQUpmjESvyR+64H2lviXRXWkwPDkr+N hOCVunfQusNj/lpoTbkRvDoy4Q0oxcgLNl1OQQw43u8wEUmksN4iqoUCBJ49UdHXkYPM YA7+qNm8hE1Gl3K6zui5MSwZWB7iOiTPU6za0tQhUJs7yKDABWQhEKayejGXDGcvst0w vunA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.8.82 with SMTP id p18mr35940479laa.25.1419453823206; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:43:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.70.212 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:43:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.70.212 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:43:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141224001728.GI23747@mercury.ccil.org> References: <92268044-81E3-4593-980C-4F04280136CD@gmail.com> <5499AB82.7040606@lojban.org> <20141223193533.GF23747@mercury.ccil.org> <20141223202825.GG23747@mercury.ccil.org> <20141224001728.GI23747@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 20:43:43 +0000 Message-ID: From: And Rosta To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Board of Directors election; recess X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0402680024337992589==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============0402680024337992589== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3561ee84a03050afc589b --001a11c3561ee84a03050afc589b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Is it approval voting? My understanding of approval voting is that one votes for as many candidates as one likes, with only a vote for all candidates being a wasted vote. Whereas, in the current voting arrangement, I am permitted to vote for only six (or seven) candidates, which has the perverse result that the more candidates there are -- and more candidates should be a good thing, as it increases the chance of best approximating the will of the electorate -- the lesser the chances of any candidate being elected by a majority. I would certainly like to elect six rather than three (not counting Bob), but I'm not that arsed which six. So I vote for Riley plus whichever other five (or six) candidates get the most votes. And On 24 Dec 2014 00:17, "John Cowan" wrote: > guskant scripsit: > > > That is approval voting. In general, range voting (also called score > > voting) is better. > > Unfortunately, my interpretation of our by-laws does not allow it. > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org > Not to perambulate the corridors during the hours of repose > in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a11c3561ee84a03050afc589b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Is it approval voting? My understanding of approval voting i= s that one votes for as many candidates as one likes, with only a vote for = all candidates being a wasted vote. Whereas, in the current voting arrangem= ent, I am permitted to vote for only six (or seven) candidates, which has t= he perverse result that the more candidates there are -- and more candidate= s should be a good thing, as it increases the chance of best approximating = the will of the electorate -- the lesser the chances of any candidate being= elected by a majority.

I would certainly like to elect six rather than three (not c= ounting Bob), but I'm not that arsed which six. So I vote for Riley plu= s whichever other five (or six) candidates get the most votes.

And

On 24 Dec 2014 00:17, "John Cowan" <= ;cowan@mercury.ccil.org> w= rote:
guskant scrips= it:

> That is approval voting. In general, range voting (also called score > voting) is better.

Unfortunately, my interpretation of our by-laws does not allow it.

--
John Cowan=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 cowan@ccil.org
Not to perambulate the corridors during the hours of repose
in the boots of ascension.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--Sign in Austrian ski= -resort hotel

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members
--001a11c3561ee84a03050afc589b-- --===============0402680024337992589== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============0402680024337992589==--