| Author |
Message |
Emberbreeze |
|
Post subject: Election Voting methods?
 Posted: Mar 25, 2005 - 06:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 323
Status: Offline
|
|
I think the charter doesn't mentions what type of election will take place. In past NAF elections it has been one member, one vote, but I'll bring up the point I made in the 'sledging' thread again.
Quote: I know this would probably require a change in the charter, but for small organisations like the NAF (and therefore not likely for this election), a transferable voting system might be the best form of election for the NAF.
you name all the candidates you want to vote for in order of preference (if you really don't want someone to win you leave their name off)
After the 1st count, if your 1st choice is in last place, then all the votes for that candidate are transfered to the voters second choice (in some systems they are weighted (eg 80% of a 1st choice vote), but that is probably unnessesary) then the person in last place has all those vote transfered (1st and second choice) to the next favourite on the voters list. and then repeat again until there is a winner.
It sounds complicated (and a nightmare to count) but it does result in the most popular choice overall being elected, not the 1st past the post system (which is really the flaw in UK and US elections)
It is probably too late for this election, but I thought I'd raise the discussion topic. |
_________________
Hag Graef Dragons Tournament Record 22:9:14 NAF Record 18:7:11
Silvania Suckers Tournament Record 8:2:11 NAF Record 5:2:11
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2005 - 08:06 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
I don't know if I should really be talking about election methods before a pending election I'm in but since I have no say at all in how the election will be done I'll go ahead anyway 
It's definitely a different idea than I'm used to. Living in Canada we use the first past the post method as well so it's the only method I have any experience with. Is this method used in elections anywhere?
In any case something needs to be done about the way elections are governed. At present the only guidelines are that it has to be done online & you need a majority vote to win. Everything else beyond that from timetables to advertising to methods is left up to the decisions of the president at the time of the election. It's been a task just to get the current election even advertised. Not to mention that the polling scripts on the PHPBB forum system were never designed to be a secure way of doing an election. Those of you who run PHPBB forums probably know what the problems are but I'm not going to go into them now just before an election and no one else should either lest we end up with a bigger problem.  |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Emberbreeze |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2005 - 12:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 323
Status: Offline
|
|
I think Austrailia uses STV (single transferable vote).
This is quite a interesting paper on voting systems and the benefit of system like the one I proposed
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html
This system is best used when there are multiple candidates none of whom are guaranteed to get a clear majority (over 50% of the total vote)
It also allows eveyone to vote for the person they like most, other than having to vote tactically to ensure a candidate who has 'more chance' of winning and defeating a disliked candidate.
I think this method is widely used in UK student body elections where several people stand for positions and there is little or no partisan nature to the candidates. This results in a wide spread of votes and a situation where if using FPTP (first past the post) the winner could have a very small % of the total vote. |
_________________
Hag Graef Dragons Tournament Record 22:9:14 NAF Record 18:7:11
Silvania Suckers Tournament Record 8:2:11 NAF Record 5:2:11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2005 - 04:28 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Australia
Posts: 742
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
I can confirm, as an electioneer and scrutineer in elections, that we use a system of preferences for national elections. (as Emberbreeze suggested). It is a good system, but is also contingent on members of parliament getting in, so the preferences are counted on a booth level.
For state elections, it's a first past the post system. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 28, 2005 - 10:33 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
So what is the method? In fact, has there been any official annoucement over the format of the election at all?
Has Antony actually said its 1st past the post? Or will we have a french style run off for the top 2? |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Emberbreeze |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 01:03 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 323
Status: Offline
|
|
looks like one member one vote, first past the post
although it hasn't been stated anywhere.
I think voting methods etc have to be discussed and the constitution changed to include more defined rules. (after this election of course)
we've got a while before the next one.
I was also thinking a voting option to re open nominatins (RON) is worth having to give some confidence in the system. |
_________________
Hag Graef Dragons Tournament Record 22:9:14 NAF Record 18:7:11
Silvania Suckers Tournament Record 8:2:11 NAF Record 5:2:11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 03:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
| No it hasn't been announced and it's quite annoying to be blunt. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the members believe it's ok to continue along this same road of a two class NAF membership system or if they want to see some change. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 10:51 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
To be fair this isn't exactly without precedent, it's following the same format (I assume) as both the Treasurer and Tournament Director elections. These issues (IIRC) weren't raised then on either occasion.
For the record, I agree it needs looking at in future though, a situation where a candidate could win an election on a (for example) 40/30/30 split where that candidate may well be the 3rd choice of 50%+ of the vote isn't going to do this organisation any favours. For that reason I'd like to see it narrowed down to a two horse race in a second round of voting or something similar to eliminate the possibilty of the 'popular vote' being split between (using the above example) two and thereby allowing a third candidate in that the majority don't actually want.
And although I'm sorely tempted, I won't respond to Brian's last post re. continuation of two-tier membership, we're supposed to be done with the debate process.  |
_________________
 Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Old_Man_Monkey |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 10:54 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 1252
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| all right, Woody, I'll follow your lead - though I suppose I am part of a second tier of membership that was created by choice and active effort, I too wil leave it alone.... |
_________________
Tournament Organizer - The Three Kingdoms Challenge
Semi-retired NAF staff
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 10:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Deathwing wrote: To be fair this isn't exactly without precedent, it's following the same format (I assume) as both the Treasurer and Tournament Director elections. These issues (IIRC) weren't raised then on either occasion.
But that's the issue. We have to assume. We simply don't know  |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Emberbreeze |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 11:22 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 323
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: For that reason I'd like to see it narrowed down to a two horse race in a second round of voting or something similar to eliminate the possibilty of the 'popular vote' being split between (using the above example) two and thereby allowing a third candidate in that the majority don't actually want.
obviously for future discussions, but the weakness of revoting, means people can change their vote, and I imagine the number of voting will actually change from vote to vote, plus making the election process much longer. |
_________________
Hag Graef Dragons Tournament Record 22:9:14 NAF Record 18:7:11
Silvania Suckers Tournament Record 8:2:11 NAF Record 5:2:11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyTBBF |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 02:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Toronto, ON
Posts: 1313
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
|
|
CyberHare wrote: Deathwing wrote: To be fair this isn't exactly without precedent, it's following the same format (I assume) as both the Treasurer and Tournament Director elections. These issues (IIRC) weren't raised then on either occasion.
But that's the issue. We have to assume. We simply don't know
It's exactly the same format, heck I even copy and pasted half of it.
IMO this format is fine. To be honest, I would have though people would have brought this up when they were voting for the guy that is holding on to all of our money. I suggest a Charter amendment after the election if it is a big issue for everyone. |
_________________
Anthony - Ex Presidente
www.xtbbf.org
Orion Cup - June 8, 2013
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 02:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
AnthonyTBBF wrote: I suggest a Charter amendment after the election if it is a big issue for everyone.
I believe I heard that somewhere before, wasn't it in one of the candidates platform?  |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Emberbreeze |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 03:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 323
Status: Offline
|
|
I think the Presidental election has more importance than tresurer. sure the treasurer has to be good with numbers and trustworthy, but he doesn't have much say in what the NAF do. (probably born out by the lack of votes)
Given the closeness of the S-NTO election I'm surprised it wasn't discussed (I wasn't really paying attention) as different election methods could have produced a different result.
or perhaps it isn't an issue at all, but I think it is worth discussing  |
_________________
Hag Graef Dragons Tournament Record 22:9:14 NAF Record 18:7:11
Silvania Suckers Tournament Record 8:2:11 NAF Record 5:2:11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 29, 2005 - 10:02 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
| Have to agree with Emb. (Not that I'm saying the Tresurer and S-NTO aren't important but) It was only when it became clear that we were going to be voting for the President of the NAF using the same system as we use to decide on wheter Clanskaven's drunk again or not() that I thought it became a problem. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
