David,
Thanks for that. Could you (or anyone) tell me if anyone has an estimate for the initial work and annualised running costs to implement some form of membership voting?
Preferred option for electoral reform?
-
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
-
- Posts: 1188
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am
Re: Preferred option for electoral reform?
Suit yourself. If we ever meet, please remind me of this discussion and I'll be glad to offer you a beer.Paul McKeown wrote:Paolo, I assume you are deliberately trying to boil my piss, so you have now achieved the honour of becoming the first person ever on my foe's list. Thanks and good night.
-
- Posts: 4830
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: Preferred option for electoral reform?
The trouble with doing that is that it reacts horribly with specialized posts like Finance Director: that post needs a particular skillset, and you might not have someone with that skillset among the ten most popular candidates.Paul McKeown wrote: I would be in favour of approval voting, too. Perhaps via a single list for all candidates, posts to be divvied up later amongst approved candidates.
-
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: Preferred option for electoral reform?
I suppose you're right, Jack. But to select NEDs from a list, for example, it would work well, I think?
However, I suggested approval lists for all posts, as approval voting between two candidates (which seems to be common in ECF elections for specific posts) doesn't make much sense, either. Unless, perhaps, combined with a threshold, when you have effectively made "neither of the above" a player, too.
However, I suggested approval lists for all posts, as approval voting between two candidates (which seems to be common in ECF elections for specific posts) doesn't make much sense, either. Unless, perhaps, combined with a threshold, when you have effectively made "neither of the above" a player, too.