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 >