In late 2025, a box sat in the secretarial office of Mathematics & Computer Science for ten days. Those eligible to vote within the Mathematics domain—the mathematics branch of the department—could deposit their paper ballots there.

For each candidate, voters indicated on the form whether they considered that person suitable to become their new chair. The organizer of this process is full professor Frits Spieksma, who held the position for the past four years. In that role, he acted as a bridge between the department board and the mathematics staff.

“Since the term of the Mathematics domain chair recently ended, the question arose: how do we arrive at the nomination of a new domain chair? We decided to use approval voting.”

Involvement

“The method means that for each candidate, the voter indicates whether they find that person acceptable as a nominee. This allows each voter to vote for more than one candidate. The candidate with the most approval votes is nominated by the domain,” Spieksma explains.

Spieksma sees two advantages: greater transparency and stronger involvement. “Compared to the alternative, where a committee nominates a candidate, this is a transparent way to arrive at the nomination of a domain chair. It increases staff involvement in the domain, the department, and TU/e, because everyone's vote counts.”

He is pleased with the turnout. There were around 65 eligible voters: all lecturers and full professors with an appointment of at least 0.7 FTE. “More than 50 of them submitted their ballot.”

Two candidates

The initiator also considered potential drawbacks. “A candidate may lose face if the outcome is disappointing. The election could also turn into a contest between candidates from different research groups, which could undermine stability within the domain.”

The latter was not experienced in this case, but the first drawback may explain why only two staff members put themselves forward as candidates. “Or perhaps it’s because the chair position requires a great deal of time and commitment,” Spieksma adds.

Nervousness

The elected associate professor Björn Baumeier, who started in his new role this month, admits he found it somewhat nerve-racking. “With a voting procedure like this, there is always a real chance that you might lose. No matter how much you try to rationalize that this is simply part of a normal democratic process, it still brings some nervousness.”

“What if colleagues value someone else more? Will that affect your current role or your future opportunities? When you go through a procedure like this for the first time within an organization, you have little to no reference points for how such a situation will unfold.”

Broad mandate

Still, Baumeier was willing to take that risk because he sees clear benefits in a democratic procedure to arrive at a nomination for domain chair. “The elected candidate will hopefully receive a broad mandate and will not be appointed through a behind-the-scenes process.”

Spieksma is satisfied with how the process unfolded and would like to see it applied more widely. “It is also done at universities in Germany and Belgium. Voting is a bottom-up way to arrive at a broadly supported nomination. Could we use such a procedure at TU/e to appoint a dean? Or a Rector Magnificus? Why not?”

This article was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor.