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