Re: [gnso-osc-ops] meaning of 'in the lead' was Re: ACTIONS/SUMMARY: ... correction

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

correction


On 2 Sep 2009, at 23:11, Avri Doria wrote:

> One thing I did fully understand during the meeting was why 'in the  
> lead'  had to mean in both houses.  i guess i do not see the danger  
> of one house
One thing i did not fully understand .....

> having a clear advantage for the following reasons:
>
> - by dealing with percentages in the houses, we effectively equalize  
> the influence of the house's votes.  using percentages is a  
> normalization.
> - by requiring a positive outcome of 60% in each house for election  
> of the chair, having an advantage in just one house in the previous  
> ballot does not translate into an automatic victory in the runoff
> - as long as the 'non of the above' option remains active in all  
> ballots, it becomes impossible for one house to force its will on  
> another. just because there is only one candidate left, it does not  
> mean that candidate will take the election.  people have to actually  
> vote for her.
> Assuming this reasoning is acceptable to others and we do move to a  
> notion of 'is in the lead' meaning an overall percentage lead, i  
> think the simplest result would be to do it mathematically.  The set  
> of possible results is not very large and i  guess that either a  
> formula or a table could be generated that clearly shows the leads.
> since i tend to think in terms of formulae and models one that i  
> think works for me takes its basis from the notion of proof in  
> whiskey (i like whiskey and hence use it as opposed to some other  
> alcohol)
> 200 proof = 100% alcohol
>
> if we take 100% of both houses, we get to 200 proof
>
> assuming that using percentage equalizes the influence of the houses  
> then
> assume house A and B with two candidates x and y
>
> A                    B
> x    y             x   y
>
> 73 30          30 70   = 100/100 hence a tie and we go into election  
> timeout
> 60 40          40 40   = 100/80   x is in the lead - x versus 'non  
> of the above'
> 50 50          40 60   =  90/110  y is in the lead - y versus 'none  
> of the above'
> etc...
>
> (the same formula works for candidates > 2 )
>
>
> i.e. whoever has the highest Proof is in the lead.
> does not _ win_ unless both houses meet the threshold, but the lead  
> is clear.
> thanks for reading
>
> a.