next »

[dr_crankypants]

We would do a ranking of all the candidates, giving top candidate one point and then going through the whole range.  If it gets down to a tie, those can be voted on separately.

May I clarify? Colleagues give their top candidate 1, their second choice 2, their third 3, and so on.  Then all these numbers are tallied.  Then the person with the lowest score is No. 1, second lowest, No. 2, etc.  Is this right?

Yes, exactly right.  If a tie resulted that way, we would have a tie-breaking vote.  I suppose if we got a tie again, we'd have to keep arguing about the relative merits of the candidates again.  But that doesn't really seem to happen much.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

We would do a ranking of all the candidates, giving top candidate one point and then going through the whole range.  If it gets down to a tie, those can be voted on separately.

May I clarify? Colleagues give their top candidate 1, their second choice 2, their third 3, and so on.  Then all these numbers are tallied.  Then the person with the lowest score is No. 1, second lowest, No. 2, etc.  Is this right?

Yes, exactly right.  If a tie resulted that way, we would have a tie-breaking vote.  I suppose if we got a tie again, we'd have to keep arguing about the relative merits of the candidates again.  But that doesn't really seem to happen much.

This is a time-honored procedure ("Borda count"), but do be aware that it has some quirks, for example a candidate whom the majority ranks #1 might not be the winner. - DvF

[bigsky]

In my department we first vote on whether or not the candidates are acceptable or not based on the interview. Those getting >2/3 acceptable are then dealt with. Each faculty member submits their top candidate among the acceptable ones. The one that comes up with the most votes is candidate 1. This process is repeated with the remaining candidates. Based on our procedure we usually end up with more than one acceptable candidate but a ranking that is forwarded to the Dean.

I think this came about because in the distant past people were sabotaging candidates that they thought were a threat to their #1. For example, ranking your #2 candidate #4 so that when the numbers are tallied your real #2 might not threaten your #1.