All of the STV systems the ASF looked at and used (and developed) do not require ranking all candidates when casting a vote. Nor is it a requirement of STV itself. On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote: > ** ** > > Simon,**** > > ** ** > > Could you clarify whether there is an STV system which does not require > ranking all candidates (45 in the last round) and would require at least N > votes (to ensure reasonable consideration) but does not require all > candidates to be ranked ?**** > > ** ** > > This would avoid the “bullet vote” mentioned in > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote, require a > reasonable level of education by the electorate (i.e. not just choose the > nearest affiliation but also allow a vote to be cast in a reasonable time > by ranking your top M candidates where M > N) ?**** > > ** ** > > Tim**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Simon Anderson [mailto:simon at dreamhost.com] > *Sent:* 15 October 2013 10:16 > *To:* elections-committee at lists.openstack.org > *Subject:* [Elections-committee] Draft STV Briefing Paper for Committee > Review**** > > ** ** > > I've attached the draft briefing paper I've prepared summarizing the > Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, and its benefits and drawbacks for > consideration by the Board at the meeting on October 17.**** > > Look forward to discussing and refining it with you all today, on and > after the election committee call. > **** > > > Best,**** > > Simon Anderson > CEO, DreamHost**** > > _______________________________________________ > Elections-committee mailing list > Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131015/92d1045b/attachment.html>