markbach

...to give the "non NA" candidates an advantage.

If you MUST vote for 1 non-NA person, than the non-NA folks are guarenteed 1/6 the votes at minimum, with only 4 or 5 of them, they have better odds for winning. Is my math correct here?

Perhaps the election process needs to be rethought.

------------------
-----------------------------------------
Vote cigarman for TalkBoard

AN-Diamond

I realise this is bound to be a contentious topic, but as a non-North American, here is my solution for future ballots:

Allow people to select the six candidates they choose (without regard to race, color, creed, or location)

When counting the ballot, if at the end of electing the second last position, there are no non-north american candidates elected, automatically elect the non north american candidate with the highest vote count.

Of course if a non-north american candidate has already been elected, continue the count based solely on vote count.

This is typically how one would operate the election for a committee requiring some form of Affirmative Action, for example a committee of 12 requiring at least one third women.

[This message has been edited by AN-Diamond (edited 09-20-2001).]

kidpachinko

The Chatters all agreed (and even did the math) that AN-D's idea is best. Simple and straightforward, and doesn't "force" any votes.

Of course, 4 int'ls fighting for 1 spot (or more) still gives better odds than 28 fighting for 5 (or less), but I agree we need an Int'l member.

-KP

markbach

Ok, so...to prove my point, I'm going to try to work this out mathematically....

NA - North American Candidate.
NNA - Non-North American Candidate

Let's assume 1000 FTer's vote. Each votes for 6 candidates (at the best case scenario of 5 NA votes and 1 NNA vote).

The NA pool of ~27 people has 5000 votes, or an average of 185 votes apiece.

The NNA pool of ~5 people has 1000 votes, or an average of 200 votes apiece.

Now, that's not too bad... 15 votes more on average is no big deal. BUT.....

What if 1/2 of the FTers vote 4 NA, 2NNA. (The rest vote 5/1 as in the previous example).

That means 4500 votes go to NA people, or ~166 on average. 1500 votes go to NNAer's or ~300 on average. This is considerably less fair.


Now....since voters are not required to vote all 6 votes, what if our 1000 FTer's vote for 1 NA and 1 NNA each. That's 2000 votes total, 1000/27 = ~37 votes on average for our NA people, 1000/5 = ~200 votes on average for our NNAs.

As you can see, at the BEST case scenerio, (everyone votes the minimum number of NNA votes), the NNA population has a slight edge. As we head towards more votes, the advantage gets better for the NNA population.

BTW: I agree that we should have NNA representation. I rather like AN Diamond's suggestion.

------------------
Vote cigarman for TalkBoard

enjoystravel

Markbach,

Your point is well taken but the word "rigged" might be too strong. It seems to me that the rules for the first ever election to the TalkBoard meant to encourage international diversity may have some side effects and need some iteration of rules.

It is not a big problem if we have some non-optimal rules in the election. Let us suggest changes for future and revise based on feedback and new understanding.

LAX 1K

I agree that it did not seem that fair.. but it is not rigged.. it was just a great idea and a way to implement it.

This is the reason an advisory board is so important, it allows members ideas to be heard. I see that the Advisory Board's purpose is even more clear all the time!

Good luck all candidates!
(including me.. LOL!)