On 2017-03-08 17:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting
system"):
WHEREAS
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
seriously lackin
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
voting system"):
> On 03/08/2017 02:27 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > "The Rules in the Order" is a reference to the previous paragraph,
> > which talks about "Rules 45-52 of the Scottish Local Government
> > Elections Order
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
voting system"):
> Thing is, you don't have general agreement that (a) proportionality is a
> good thing or (b) that STV is a proportional vote system. So the above
> just invites arguments on both points (from me, and f
On 03/08/2017 02:27 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
> voting system"):
>>> 8. The practical implementation will be by means of software; for
>>>example, perhaps the openstv package in Debian. The choice of
>>>software i
On 03/08/2017 02:23 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
> voting system"):
>>> WHEREAS
>>>
>>> 1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
>>>system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
>>
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
voting system"):
> > 8. The practical implementation will be by means of software; for
> >example, perhaps the openstv package in Debian. The choice of
> >software is up to the Secretary. However, any difference
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
voting system"):
> > WHEREAS
> >
> > 1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
> >system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
> >seriously lacking in proportionality in m
On 8 March 2017 at 18:09, Josh berkus wrote:
>> 7. Specifically, the algorithm to be used is that specified in
>>Rules 45-52 of the Scottish Local Government Elections Order
>>2007 (a UK Statutory Instrument):
>>
>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/cross
> WHEREAS
>
> 1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
>system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
>seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such
>as SPI's Board Elections.
Please cut this paragraph and replace. As wr
On 2017-03-08 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
voting system"):
Thank you Ian. Here are my remarks.
On 2017-03-08 06:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system.
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board
elections voting system"):
> Thank you Ian. Here are my remarks.
>
> On 2017-03-08 06:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
> > system. Condorcet is good for single-
Just to clarify, given my recent involvement with this discussion, I am
in favour of adopting Ian's resolution as detailed below.
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 11:43:29AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (Background:
>
> We discussed voting systems extensively on spi-private and spi-general
> in July and Au
+1 from me as well & I hope this comes to be passed.
-hilmar
Sent from away
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
> (Background:
>
> We discussed voting systems extensively on spi-private and spi-general
> in July and August 2017.
>
> Recently, the Board asked me to
>
> dra
Thank you Ian. Here are my remarks.
On 2017-03-08 06:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
Ian.
WHEREAS
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner election
+1
On Mar 8, 2017 03:43, "Ian Jackson" wrote:
> (Background:
>
> We discussed voting systems extensively on spi-private and spi-general
> in July and August 2017.
>
> Recently, the Board asked me to
>
> draft a resolution to replace the existing Condrocet-based voting
> algorithm with a more
(Background:
We discussed voting systems extensively on spi-private and spi-general
in July and August 2017.
Recently, the Board asked me to
draft a resolution to replace the existing Condrocet-based voting
algorithm with a more appropriate algorithm, taking into account any
existing feedb
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting
algorithm for Board elections)"):
> Concordet is not a winning-faction-take-all system. It is a "most
> acceptable candidate" system. Which kinda makes this argument invalid.
Condorcet is a single-winner voting system
17 matches
Mail list logo
