[MathSoc Council] Motions to be added to next council meeting
febrian914 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 10 17:09:05 EDT 2013
The problem with selecting CRO the term before or running part of
nomination period from the term before is that many of our students are in
co-op. So for those who are away from campus the term before, nomination
period is effectively the first few weeks of class.
I dont disagree with the idea of selecting CRO early, but it also
disadvantages students who are away from campus the term before.
As part of election committee for 3 terms, i have not been able to
understand the process completely. Not all of our students understand graph
theory and thus only select people can make sure the process is done
There is an open source implementation for it, but i dont like the idea
that there is a probability that the scrutineers dont understand the
process themselves and rely completely on computers to do it, as they cant
check if there is a mistake.
I wanted to propose this change since the beginning of the term, if not
earlier, supported even more when i tried to do the entire Schulze method
without using the program; not because it was proposed in Feds. (Though i
found out about BC STV and decided to use it from discussion after that
If the reason why we shouldnt discuss this change is because there is no
complaint about it, then consider this motions as complain from me in my
role as CRO.
>From what i understand, the only change necessary is that voters cannot
give same ranking to more than one candidates and that they are not
required to rank all candidates.
The counting process need to be done, either with Schulze or with BC STV.
On 2013-10-10 4:48 PM, "Elizabeth McFaul" <elizabethmcfaul2 at gmail.com>
> There's a good reason we don't force the President to start an election on
> the first day. The first week is crazy, and trying to run nominations in it
> can be challenging for a new exec team. There have also been cases where we
> start a nomination process in the end of the previous term and runs through
> the first couple of weeks. I agree with the idea of getting new councillors
> early, but the gain is often only a single meeting (the budget meeting). An
> alternative option would be choosing the CRO the term before, if the
> timeline is essential.
> On the Schulze STV side, I don't think we should change it. Part of the
> uniqueness of math is that we are using the most? mathematically correct
> system, and we do a full explanation of the results. Anyone can scrutinize
> it if they have an understanding of graph theory. There are also open
> source implementations that we can use to run it. On the Feds side, I'm
> recommending a shift to BC STV only because Schulze is a huge change, and
> there are additional IT challenges. Changing to a new system wouldn't solve
> the succession problem either, since its the voting system that requires
> training not the calculations portion.
> We haven't had any complaints about it. Changing this seems like a waste
> of time (and resources).
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Febrian Sidharta <febrian914 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> President is CRO until a CRO is elected, but there is no obligation to
>> run byelections.
>> Why starting at first day of class? So that we can have newly elected
>> councillors within the first 2-3 weeks, so they can join the second (if not
>> the first) council meeting, instead of later in the term.
>> As Stephane mentioned, Schulze STV is complicated. Right now we only have
>> one (or two) people who can scrutinize it. It is a problem for succession
>> and transparency.
>> BC STV is proposed because i consider it to be the most fair system that
>> is not too complicated to be understood by most people. I am open for
>> feedback if there is another system that can be more fair yet easy to
>> scrutinize and be understood.
>> Febrian Sidharta
>> On 2013-10-10 4:21 PM, "Elizabeth McFaul" <elizabethmcfaul2 at gmail.com>
>>> We have been running under the assumption that the President is CRO
>>> until one is elected, and have been running elections for empty seats at
>>> the start of the term.
>>> What's your reasoning behind simplifying to BC STV? I was under the
>>> impression that we haven't had any issues running Schulze STV.
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Febrian Sidharta <fsidhart at uwaterloo.ca
>>> > wrote:
>>>> To Speaker,
>>>> I intend to propose two motions to change Elections Procedure policy in
>>>> the next Mathsoc Council meeting (exact wording will follow)
>>>> 1. in the terms when by-election is needed, to require President to run
>>>> the by-election with nomination period start at the first day of school
>>>> 2. to change election vote process from Schulze STV to BC STV
>>>> *Febrian Sidharta*
>>>> Statistics Councillor, Fall 2013
>>>> Chief Returning Officer, Fall 2013
>>>> Mathematics Society, University of Waterloo
>>>> Council mailing list
>>>> Council at mathsoc.uwaterloo.ca
>>> *Elizabeth McFaul*
>>> 4B Honours Mathematics/Business Administration Double Degree
>>> University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University*
>>> Email:* elizabethmcfaul2 at gmail.com*
>>> Council mailing list
>>> Council at mathsoc.uwaterloo.ca
>> Council mailing list
>> Council at mathsoc.uwaterloo.ca
> *Elizabeth McFaul*
> 4B Honours Mathematics/Business Administration Double Degree
> University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University*
> Email:* elizabethmcfaul2 at gmail.com*
> Council mailing list
> Council at mathsoc.uwaterloo.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Council