I went to the sites Leigh linked, and read about BC-STV. The public
just doesn't seem bright enough to understand novel voting procedures
that would actually allow them to voice their preferences better than
the one-vote system most of us seem stuck with.
Although I am sad the BC referendum did not pass, I am amazed it got to
the referendum stage at all, and then further amazed that it got about
60% of the vote. Anything that sensible would never get 60% of the vote
in Ohio. The more sense something makes to me, the more it seems to
generate fear in my fellow Ohioans.
Alas, it is not better in the learned faculty of Bluffton University. A
long time ago, perhaps initiated by the Martin Gardner column Leigh
mentioned, we had a Dean of Academic Affairs who suggested the faculty
elect our faculty chair in a manner similar to BC-STV. The major
difference was the dean proposed a two-ballot process in which the first
ballot would take the place of the nominating committee. On this first
ballot the faculty got a list of all eligible faculty members, and we
were allowed to put a check mark beside as many as we wanted. The idea
was to indicate several people you thought would make a good faculty
chair. These check marks all carried equal weight. The top ten vote
getters became the slate for the second ballot.
The second ballot was done exactly like BC-STV... you could ranked the
slate. You could vote 1; 1,2; 1,2,3; or even rank them all.
I was not sure we needed a two-step process. It seemed to me that
ranking up to 10 on the whole faculty roster would have worked fine.
However, the Dean argued that the two-step process would allow you to
have some say in the final outcome even when none of your top ten
choices made in into the overall top ten. I figured that was true, so I
voted that we should try the Dean's proposal.
The faculty (70% of whom have PhD and the rest have MA/MS) reluctantly
agreed to give it a try. I thought the system was wonderful. However,
in the first year faculty got confused about the double-ballot system
and why they were just checking names on the first ballot but doing a
ranking on the second ballot. Many actually said the process was
stupid. In protest many of them checked all names on the first ballot,
then stopped with one on the second ballot, essentially trying to turn
the system back into the old system. I figured that was okay... let
them be the stupid ones and I'll get more say by using the system
properlly. However, after using that system for two years, the faculty
executive committee decided it wasn't working and they proposed we go
back to the old system in which a nominating committee chooses 6
candidates and then we vote for one. The vote to go back to the old
system was overwhelming. Go figure.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l