Correction Appended
Several members of the USG expressed confusion at last night’s USG Senate meeting about changes in the election process for U-Councilors, concerned that neither they nor the student body was informed of the change before voting began yesterday at ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Why didn't anyone at the USG meeting know anything about how this system works?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Edinburgh Voter: I believe you are correct about being able to assign preferences for all candidates. I believe the practical reason for limiting the preferences are the limitations of the WebSurvey system (designed and maintained by OIT) currently used, in which each preference must be a separate question with a list of radio buttons for each candidate. If there were 20 candidates, voters might have to answer up to 20 separate questions. That said, it is fairer to allow any number of preferences to indicated. However, you are incorrect concerning the quota. The USG uses the Droop quota, which is commonly used in political elections where STV is employed. Nevertheless, OIT (Office of Information Technology) handles the entire vote counting process using an automated system, and the results are double checked at the Registrar's office before being release to the USG. With the exception of the limited number of preferences allowed, the USG is using a well established and fair, albeit complicated, system for determining U-Councilors. Leave it to the Prince to report on a subtle and complicated issue such as this without contacting a single person involved or familiar with the technical aspects of the election.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"Their" is an agenda, and we were discussing ways the university could have addressed it better and how we can move forward from this. Furthermore, just because you have a prejudice against the Trenton Times doesn't mean this story isn't incredibly serious. The voting thing could have been handled better, but you don't need to criticize for criticism's sake.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The USG will "study" "possible" "reform" measures. Really? Senate members then discussed an emailed Trenton Times article for roughly ten minutes? Really? lmao Isn't their an agenda anymore? What happened to USG? *Shakes head*
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
From this report, it would appear there is considerable confusion at Princeton about how the single transferable system of proportional representation should work. When you elect several member together ("at large") there should be NO restriction on the number of preferences each voter can mark. So if there are 20 candidates for 10 places, the voters should be free to mark all 20 preferences or mark only one preference or mark any number of preferences between 1 and 20, just as the individual voter wishes. The quota should be calculated without adding anything to the number of valid votes. If a candidate has more votes than the quota that candidate is elected and that candidate's surplus votes (votes in excess of the quota) is transferred. When all the surpluses have been transferred and some places remain to be filled, the candidate with the fewest votes should be excluded (eliminated) and all of that candidate's votes should be transferred to unelected candidates in accordance with the next available preferences recorded by the voters. If you do not follow this procedure you will not get proportional representation of the wishes of the voters.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!