This may be a terminology issue.  I was referring to the election of the 
three councillors, all in a single "race" but for three winners to 
result from a single slate of candidates.  In this case, all candidates 
run against each other, but there are three seats open to be filled.  I 
was calling this a "multiple seat" election, because we don't 
distinguish the seats from each other as to representation.  It's not as 
if we had "councillor seat #1, #2, and #3" to fill -- that would be a 
single-seat election, and each seat would have its own discrete set of 
candidates, and a candidate could run for only one of those seats at a 
time.  This was not that.

Sorry if I was not entirely clear.

Dan

PS: I don't know who might be organizing the Elections WG, but 
unfortunately it will not be me.


On 9/7/16 12:12 PM, Enrique Chaparro wrote:
> Please excuse me, Dan, but here is a conceptual mistake
> in your message:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [...]
>> One issue about STV (also known as IRV in the US -- instant runoff vote,
>> which is one way to tabulate such ballots but not the only one) is that it
>> is designed for single-seat races.  Most of the questions about the recent
>> election had to do with the multiple-seat election and the role of NotA.
> Our recent election was not multiple seat, but several single seat races.
> There is where NotA effect became distorsive, as a number of us have
> pointed out.
>
> More generally, we should try to come out with an election system that
> is a) simple, b) reasonably fair and c) non paradoxical. That would be
> good enough.
>
> Please count me into the 'election systems SG' if it's formed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Enrique
>