[Lpganationaldelegates2018] Question About LNC At-Large/Judicial Committee Votes

[John]

Plurality voting is only acceptable when there are exactly 2 candidates 
(or 1 + NOTA). Under any other circumstance it's about as good as 
picking the candidate at random.

Ideally, I would prefer that we use stock, normal AV. No pressure to 
pick a certain number of candidates, no voteshare threshold for success 
(just top X).

That said, the way it was conducted is good enough for me. It's better 
than IRV for a case like this because of center squeeze (ie AV leads to 
better results) and speed in both voting and counting, but just about 
any system would be better than plurality.


On 07/06/2018 01:39 PM, Ted Metz via Lpganationaldelegates2018 wrote:
> I am very pleased with the At-Large outcome. It is my opinion that the 
> At-large voting procedure is flawed in that there are 5 slots and 
> 30(?) candidates. I think plurality voting is the only way to 
> efficiently handle multiple candidates for multiple openings. There 
> was no bullying, no force, no intimidation.
>
> Furthermore, I am not certain that the outcome would have been any 
> different had the procedure been done by the book, and if it had, it 
> would have taken 12 hours or more, same opinion with the Judicial 
> Committee. I would like to see plurality voting for any positions that 
> have multiple openings with perhaps taking the top vote recipients 
> equal to twice the number of openings for round one, and move them to 
> the final round of plurality voting to determine the top picks.
>
> For these elections, we were allowed to choose all of our candidate 
> choices, and those with the most approval votes got the positions.
>
> Now, this sort of officer election would be perfect for ranked choice 
> voting.
>
> I suspect that the person(s) raising the issue is just upset that 
> their guy didn't win.
>
> Ted Metz
>