Re: Répondre: Re: [Mmwg] Important : procedure for runoff election

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Dear Tijani,

A few comments on your remarks - knowing that I have accepted we run this
election the traditional way. Thanks for keeping the discussion going.


On 2/16/06, Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn> wrote:


1.      In all "democratic" elections, the second round doesn't require a
strong majority.

Yes, it's just a boxing match to find a winner in all cases and this is why
we end up with very slim majorities in many countries, that do not prevent
the winner from not respecting the -strong- minority. You also have the US
case of  a president elected with a minority of votes pushing a strong right
wing political agenda as if he were elected by a landslide vote. In
addition, you usually do not count the "blank votes" (ie people who voted
but refused to choose among the stupid two choices they were proposed).
Finally, the abstention rate is growing in most "democratic countries".
Result is, the heads of many countries are actually elected by about 35-40 %
max of the voters at best.


2.      I have never heard about an election where people vote for 2
candidates to choose one.

Is that a sufficient reason to refuse to study it if it provides solutions
to the problems above ? Actually, the very reason I propose it is that it
offers people the possibility to not only think about their favorite
candidates but also to give a chance to another one that they bnelieve could
be acceptable to a large majority. It's a way to explore how you can combine
expression of personnal preferences and the caring of community interests.


3.      In case some of us vote for only one, the result will not reflect
the
choice of the majority. It will be as if some vote twice, and the others
only once.

Fair remark. I will get more thought to that.


4.      In Bertrand's proposition, there are 2 cases where the calculation
will not mach.


Can you tell me more, I am looking for potential flaws and am not sure that
I know the points you allude to.


5.      With Jacqueline's proposition, we will have a majority, even if it
is
a very simple one. I think that it's better then any other kind of
combination.


Better than a guaranteed 2/3 majority ? Is that what you mean ?

What ever the consensus will be, I will stick to it, especially because I
don't think that it will have a major impact on the work of the group,
and also because I don't want my friend Bertrand to be "sad"…

Thank you for caring. Sincerely.

Looking forward to discussing that further with you.

Best

Bertrand
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060217/9133da28/attachment-0001.html