Received: from localhost ([::1]:34465 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3bAB-0003SI-Q9; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:54:59 -0800 Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:62841) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3bA9-0003SB-Kx for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:54:59 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id uz6so27749339obc.2 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:54:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=PkdCFmwm1w01MjfRRD0JyPhxKZD6MhVupPXfvNKUy0o=; b=0WOZcO7CqfjwNP62dbXxLW33at07Sal3gF07pSDe9HCmHLVcemYQGRPcojVb7Z9h+t c2/LkGsphQ9I+vvfBxsA8VwBIl4bq8KZpskYtdjGPDTvEvrqIHp/5C66Vt7GQ8ug02CR FFtBG2IIGCkM3EZOJZgEms9fLIZ9B2ntYD/h+5Cri/+YYy8JK99UMq0llK3ifsbMHvpf i7v/02+a6yPcWdoEi+O3u5rms748dogsnXeQND2smSVlNZzeLU3Zu3DmB3ysa8BL+m/b /Ljcf06F/UJriQ5BlcQfUEA2LRizr/NtHu7Vlj6YXagD2uodvC+rSsNKODHYx2P3HIpx pkJg== X-Received: by 10.60.92.40 with SMTP id cj8mr18030925oeb.43.1419386090387; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:54:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.74.38 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:54:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <549A0841.3080100@lojban.org> References: <92268044-81E3-4593-980C-4F04280136CD@gmail.com> <5499AB82.7040606@lojban.org> <20141223193533.GF23747@mercury.ccil.org> <20141223202825.GG23747@mercury.ccil.org> <549A0841.3080100@lojban.org> From: guskant Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:54:30 +0900 Message-ID: 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org 2014-12-24 9:26 GMT+09:00 Bob LeChevalier : > On 12/23/2014 6:56 PM, guskant wrote: >> >> That is approval voting. In general, range voting (also called score >> voting) is better. >> http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html >> >> Actually, the current voting is to select two non-board members >> (regarding Robin as to be un-selected and Bob to be selected.) > > > Not quite. Three members are selected by a plurality. Any additional > members up to 7 total have to get a majority of votes. > > I am not sure range/score voting would comply with the bylaw, which clearly > is designed around the concepts of plurality and majority of votes. > > lojbab > > So we discuss the Article 4, Section 2 of the Bylaws: How Elected. At the Annual Meeting of members, the three (3) persons receiving a plurality of the votes cast and up to four (4) additional persons receiving a majority of votes shall be Directors and shall constitute the Board of Directors for the ensuing year. We can hold plurality/majority election with the range (or score) voting system. Three candidates who get the highest score are winner, and four among the others can be winners if they get higher than a certain score (the middle score, for example.) The approval voting is a two-level-case of the range voting. For the current election, there is not much movement from a political point of view, and I don't think therefore the multi-level range voting could bring a remarkable difference from the two-level ("approval") range voting. However in general, the number of levels could affect the result. The candidates who did not get highest scores but many not-so-bad scores will be reasonably selected or un-selected by the multi-level range voting. In conclusion, I don't assert changing the voting system for the current election, but for the future election. mu'o _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members