Adopted 10 Oct 2009
Cotati, Sonoma County

From the minutes:

9: 50  APPROVED BY CONSENSUS. One stand-aside concern:
Greg Jan (Alameda): When a low number of candidates and a low number of seats, the threshold will be
relatively high. Extra and tricky math makes the process unfair.







PROPOSAL -- Voting Threshold Correction

SPONSOR:  Bylaws SC

PRESENTER/CONTACT:  Jim Stauffer; jims@greens.org; 408-432-9148

SUBJECT:  Change the STV voting threshold in bylaws 7-1.8 to be a variable value when the number of
candidates is less than the number of open seats.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:
Section 7-1.8 of the bylaws describes the application of STV voting system for Coordinating
Committee (CC) at-large seats. There are currently four at-large seats on the CC, with two seats
elected each year for a two-year term.

When the GPUS Delegation was formed, rather than writing a new procedure for their at-large
elections, they simply stated that the election would be the same as the CC (11-2.1). However,
unlike the CC with its two-seat election, the Delegation consists of 40+ members and their elections
typically involve many open seats, usually more open seats than there are candidates. This is a
situation that 7-1.8 did not contemplate.

The problem is that the threshold stated in 7-1.8 is [1/n+1] where n = open seats. When applied to
the Delegation election in a scenario such as what we are experiencing in our current General
Assemblies, using open seats in the equation results in very low thresholds.

Example:

An election with 12 open seats, 4 candidates, and 36 voters.
The threshold is  36 x [1/(12 + 1)] = 3  (rounding up)

So any candidate is elected with only three votes, which is only 8% of voters.

This creates a situation where a few voters who indiscriminately rank all candidates can (and do)
end up electing some people of whom other voters have concerns. Establishing a higher threshold
would require more affirmative votes for each winning candidate.

PROPOSAL:
Add the following paragraph to 7-1.8:

"For the purpose of calculations, n = open seats shall be adjusted, when necessary, so that the
value of n shall not be higher than the number of candidates qualified for the ballot."

This is technocratic language to say that, when there are more candidates than seats, n will equal
the number of candidates, not the number of open seats.

The example now looks like this:

An election with 12 open seats, 4 candidates, and 36 voters.
The threshold is  36 x [1/(4 + 1)] = 8  (rounding up)

A winning candidate now requires at least 8 votes, which is 25% of voters.

COMMITTEE DECISION:


TIME LINE:
Immediate implementation.

RESOURCES:
The elections committee that calculates the results must be aware of the new procedure.