At 4:08 PM +0000 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >This is a how-to question, less of a philosophical or policy >question, i hope I've found the right group, apologies if not.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it hurts to discuss the practicalities of using our methods, though. >I run a small non-profit org whose Board has extolled the virtue of >STV and related proportional voting processes as superior. I must >follow that guidance in the upcoming election of a small steering >committee, as a test of using this for the larger Board elections >next year. > >My goal is to elect a 5 person committee, the three with the most >support will win a 2 year term, the balance (2 ) would win a 1 year >seat. This split will allow future years to re-elect a portion of >the panel. > >I have OpenSTV as my (current) desktop ballot counter but am open to >other solutions. > >I expect 20-30 votes to pick 5 of the 7 candidates running. While >this small number may make me lean towards a human-powered >calculation, I'd prefer something more mechanical, especially >because this new process will likely roll out to the bigger Board >elections with hundreds of ballots cast. There are STV methods that are amenable to hand counting, but the distortions they introduce are especially intrusive in smaller elections. I'd use OpenSTV (but then I work on it, so...). Speaking of methods, my #1 piece of advice is to be sure you've specified your STV method in advance. Different STV methods can yield different results, especially in close elections, and especially in small elections. The exact method you choose is less important than choosing *something*--before the election. I agree with Chris that STV is of limited value in a two-seat election. I understand the motivation for staggered terms, but it does tend to work against the interests of PR. I'd also argue that STV methods are of little or no use in identifying "the tree with the most support", as STV methods don't really rank their winners ("most support" is a fuzzy concept at best in many situations, and to equate "elected earlier" with "more support" is in general a mistake). If I had to do what you're proposing, I think I'd count the election once for three seats, and then count the same ballots a second time for two seats, after withdrawing the three winners from the first round. Beyond that, I'd either abandon staggered terms, or expand the committee to six members. -- /Jonathan Lundell. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info