secondsilk: Scott from Strictly Ballroom, caught at the end of the turn, arms raised. (Default)
secret welfare poet ([personal profile] secondsilk) wrote in [community profile] otw_news 2011-11-17 12:34 pm (UTC)

I'd support this solution.

Each of the candidates are running for all four open positions at once, right? So in order to determine who gets which position, they positions much be ranked (conceptually). Actually, this seems clear from the ballot structure, with the top down preferencing. (Rather than having bottom up preferencing until there were four candidates left.)

This is also what happens in the Australian Senate if there is a double dissolution election of the Senate and the whole of the Senate has to be reelected at the same time, in order to reestablish the staggered election pattern of the Senate. (The Australian Senate has a similar top-down preference count, although it's proportional as well as preferential.) (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn45.pdf)

Post a comment in response:

This community only allows commenting by members. You may comment here if you're a member of otw_news.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org