I didn't think anything was done "incorrectly" - just that when I found myself the last voter while on vacation/holiday (using my Cellphone browser!), and the vote was tied 3-3 -- my vote became the "most important one" which I didn't like.
When I saw this situation and that less than 2 hours had transpired, I quickly voted my original choice right away since I didn't want to wait and be in that position for very long. (So in my own way I gamed it so that I would not hold the "deciding vote" knowingly for more than 10 minutes)
I would be all for figuring out a better way to vote for high stakes items when all are not present - to avoid timing as game theory, though I do not wish to level criticism at Pat, I would likely have done the same thing in his shoes, and he made the best of a tough situation!
[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2i4vrnvf]There has been some comment and criticism here of the way the vote for the Chancellor was taken and suggestions for how it could be done better in future.
If anyone wishes to challenge the vote they need to lodge a complaint with the Scientific Council immediately. Here was my rationale for taking the vote the way I did:
1. There is no provision for a secret ballot at an RA meeting and, to my knowledge, one has not been used before.
2. The vote was taken in the same way the previous vote was taken, by RA members stating their preference openly in the meeting. The RA has procedures for dealing with absent members which were invoked at this meeting, hence the appearance of Bromo and Brian's votes on the forums a day or two later. Fundamentally, this is no different from the way the vote was taken in the previous election; it could be argued that taking the vote in open session also privileges those who vote last because they can weigh up which way to cast their vote. The only difference is that with 7-day voting the absent members have longer to consider their vote and, perhaps, do backroom deals.
3. In deciding to employ this method, instead of inventing a new process not used before, I also bore in mind the possibility of legal challenge. Following the previous precedent seemed to me to carry less risk of challenge than any of the alternatives.
4. A secret ballot requires someone who the ballot is sent to. In this case the obvious choices were: LRA (CSDF) or Dean (CSDF). Again, open to challenge and accusations that such 'insider' knowledge could be abused.
5. Delaying the vote until the next week was not a serious option. It is unlikely that we will have all 7 members of the RA present at the next meeting. I'm pretty sure I have at least one apology for absence in already.
Let's learn from this and do things differently in future. I would favour the use of the Borda count to decide the election for Chancellor among the RA members at their first meeting. We could use FRs election booth to facilitate that. It is likely to produce a definitive result (because second choices are likely to result in an overall winner) and would be a secret ballot. The only problem is that it would encourage tactical voting but, hey, nothing's perfect 
[/quote:2i4vrnvf]
