Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Spring 2004 OCT Elections: Procedure and Call for Nominations

Collapse
22: Re: Spring 2004 OCT Elections: Procedure and Call for Nominations (response to 21)
Posted by Malte Sussdorff on 06/08/04 12:23 PM
Guan, Jarkko, thanks a lot for taking the time to conduct this vote and giving us the results. Thanks a lot also to the 72 voters who took their time to vote.

As for the tie, I've got a couple of suggestions (one of which should make it into a TIP, as we seem to develop a habbit of ties)

- Throw a coin
- Enlarge the OCT
- Let Andrew and Caroline talk it out between themselves
- Ask the other eight OCT members to make a quick vote

Collapse
23: Re: Spring 2004 OCT Elections: Procedure and Call for Nominations (response to 22)
Posted by Talli Somekh on 06/08/04 01:12 PM
there's something called a runoff that is standard practice in these situations.

talli

Collapse
24: Re: Spring 2004 OCT Elections: Procedure and Call for Nominations (response to 23)
Posted by Jeff Davis on 06/08/04 01:21 PM
I am in favor of letting Caroline and Andrew decide which
of them wants to do it (or request a runoff if that's what they would prefer to do).
Collapse
25: Re: Spring 2004 OCT Elections: Procedure and Call for Nominations (response to 23)
Posted by Malte Sussdorff on 06/08/04 02:02 PM
Would a runoff election (I don't know the term, sorry), mean to have a new election just between the two with one vote for each voter? If yes, I'd favour for any method to avoid this as we should not put too much strain on the electorate (though I do agree it is standard procedure).