On 03/07/2017 10:29 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
> But STV is still a "single-winner" system. Any multi-winner
> implementation of it we choose would *still* be experimental
Aha, just found the multi-winner math for STV. Please ignore this part
of my arguments. The other parts still apply.
_
On 03/07/2017 10:13 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting
> algorithm for Board elections)"):
>> So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems
>> terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system a
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting
algorithm for Board elections)"):
> So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems
> terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and
> fixing the problem with unranked candidates
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 08:50:09PM -0800, Josh berkus wrote:
> So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems
> terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and
> fixing the problem with unranked candidates
FWIW this is already fixed; the current system supp
