Voting Methods Flamewar

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Russ Garrett

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 9:42:27 AM7/5/11
to London Hack Space
We want to enshrine a decent system of voting for directors in the new
constitution. Currently directors are elected by a show of hands at
the AGM, which has obvious disincentives to voting "no".

The size of the board of directors is fixed at 8 people, and we plan
to keep it that way. We also keep to plan to keep the rotation policy
so that the oldest third of the directors is obliged to stand for
re-election every year (with a full board this will be three people;
this year it's two).

Given the size of the membership, we expect that there will generally
be more applicants than places on the board. So we'd like a system of
voting by secret ballot. Having talked to a few people, I propose that
we use Meek STV with a "None of the above" option. Does anyone have
any particular objections to this system?

After some discussion, we've decided that we will use the resulting
system at the next AGM, regardless of the number of applicants.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

Martin Klang

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 10:40:41 AM7/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

On 5 Jul 2011, at 14:42, Russ Garrett wrote:

> We also keep to plan to keep the rotation policy
> so that the oldest third of the directors is obliged to stand for
> re-election every year

am I daft or is that an anti-rotation policy?

/m

Russ Garrett

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 10:47:45 AM7/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

No, it's not. The oldest third of the board has to step down, and may
stand for re-election, every year.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

Kieran

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 10:58:08 AM7/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
> >> We also keep to plan to keep the rotation policy
> >> so that the oldest third of the directors is obliged to stand for
> >> re-election every year
> >
> > am I daft or is that an anti-rotation policy?
>
> No, it's not. The oldest third of the board has to step down, and may
> stand for re-election, every year.

To clarify: is that the third who have been on the board longest, or the third
who have been the longest since last standing for election?

If the former, it is possible to imagine 2-3 very popular directors
effectively keeping the others from ever having to stand. Although I guess
it's fairly safe to assume that if that happened for long in practice,
something would be done about it.

Martin Klang

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 11:03:09 AM7/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com

ah so the remaining 2/3 are retained? automatically re-elected?
and no-one is in fact _obliged_ to stand for re-election, but to stand down...
slowly I'm beginning to understand.

(me: daft)

/m

Russ Garrett

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 11:03:56 AM7/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
On 5 July 2011 15:58, Kieran <kie...@twisted.org.uk> wrote:
> To clarify: is that the third who have been on the board longest, or the third
> who have been the longest since last standing for election?

Ah, I see we've got some budding lawyers here... From our current constitution:

"The members of the Board to retire shall be those who have been
longest in office since their last election or appointment. As between
members of equal seniority, the members to retire shall in the absence
of agreement be selected from among them by lot."

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

Tom Scott

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 12:17:25 PM7/5/11
to london-h...@googlegroups.com
Meek STV is an excellent system for elections. For doing the calculations, https://instantstv.appspot.com/ is reliable and mathematically accurate - it was put together by my old Student Union's former IT guy :)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages