From Lehrstuhl Weber:
> 1. Voting method: In my opinion it would be a proportionnate solution
if a > member would have 6 votes, but could not allocate more than 2
votes to the > same candidate. This allows a certain concentration and
does not cause the > risk that a few members could heavily influence the
outcome by agreeing to > give six votes to the same candidate. This
solution would also be slightly > more flexible than V2 (by allowing for
example 2 votes for a candidate and > 1 vote for 4 other candidates).

Funny, that is exactly what I proposed. However, the feeling at the
meeting was that it would be extremely complicated to convey this mixed
solution in a ballot. A confused voter is a serious problem and can
cause challenges to the legitimacy of the entire election. 

From Cheryl Preston:
> I attended each of the meetings discussed in these "minutes," and
several
> observations are necessary.  First, with respect to the discussion on
> Milton's proposed charter, when the notes speak of "the group" as
> "agreeing," it means that there were 7 persons present and the votes
on
> many items were 6 to 1.  Seven in not a quorum.  These are not binding
> votes.  It would inappropriate at this time to assume that any of the
> discussions or conclusions represented in these minutes is fixed or
final.

In fact, Cheryl, there were no votes AT ALL in the meeting, because that
is not how things are (or should be) decided. You were there when we
decided to pose these questions to the list; we did so because no
decision should be made without membership input. And it is a fact noted
in my description that there was one person who favored cumulative
voting. 

--MM