Susan Spencer writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> Well, 'recent commits' is useful only as an imperfect indicator of
> whether a project is dead or alive. It isn't an absolute to use as
> a checkbox item for evaluating the appropriateness of a software
or any variety of factors.
It is part of the 'due diligence' research phase of choosing a software
solution.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Ian Jackson <
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Susan Spencer writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
>
Susan Spencer writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> Which STV software has both:
>
> 1. open source license
> 2. recent commits
I think asking for recent commits is not really sensible. In general
the meme that software is only useable, or only of high quality, if
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:57:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:02:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
> > > interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not pr
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:02:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
> > interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
> > which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency
PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_single_transferable_vote
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
> SPI should adopt a system widely used elsewhere.
>
> STV is the only widely adopted proportional voting system suitable for
> SPI (the others are supplementary/additional member systems, and party
> list systems).
I agree that STV is a pretty reasonable system, in fact it is the best
widely-depl
Which STV software has both:
1. open source license
2. recent commits
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Ian Jackson <
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> > On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
&g
Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> > system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> > composition
On 08/16/2016 08:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
the
Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> > system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> > composition
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> Let me describe two STV pathologies that actually happened in the last
> couple years, and certainly raised my eyebrows.
>
> First, the result of an election can depend on the order of ballots.
> I
On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
> the majoritarian or consensus candidates (as a
On 08/16/2016 07:04 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
On 25 July 2016 at 19:10, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
SPI should adopt a system widely used elsewhere.
Correct.
STV is the only widely adopted proportional voting system su
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> It seems like a few people seem to find the argument for RRV
> convincing, and no one has objected.
I feel the need to repost here, an article I posted to spi-private on
the 4th of August:
From: Ian Jackson
T
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 25 July 2016 at 19:10, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > If the members could come to a consensus on the type of voting we should
> > switch to, I would be more than happy to write the resolution.
>
>
On 25 July 2016 at 19:10, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> If the members could come to a consensus on the type of voting we should
> switch to, I would be more than happy to write the resolution.
It seems like a few people seem to find the argument for RRV
convincing, and no one has objected. Does anyon
Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
> > interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
> > which
On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
> interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
> which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency in itself.
I was told off-list that this was changed now:
https://github
> If the members could come to a consensus on the type of voting we should
switch to, I would be more than happy to write the resolution.
+1
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
I'm pretty impressed with RRV.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 10:11 AM Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If the members could come to a consensus on the type of voting we should
> switch to, I would be more than happy to write the resolution.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> JD
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc.
Hello,
If the members could come to a consensus on the type of voting we should
switch to, I would be more than happy to write the resolution.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full
+1
I would suggest that we
> adopt a best-of-breed proportional representation system, namely RRV,
> nicely documented and analyzed here: http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Barak
>
>
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.
> I don't think SPI should be in the business of designing and then
> adopting a bespoke election system.
Indeed, getting voting systems right is highly technical and
mathematical, and remains an active area of research. (Observe the
current presidential election in the USA to see what happens whe
Aaron M. Ucko writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> Here's a half-baked thought, for the sake of brainstorming: What if the
> vote-counting software were to alternate between selecting Condorcet
> winners and progressively reweighting ballots to discount those t
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:48:59PM -0700, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 07/22/2016 02:35 PM, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> > This time around, we very much do - 13 candidates for 6 spots. Read our
> > platforms and vote. :) However nobody is taking about replacing the voting
> > system for the current electio
On 07/22/2016 02:35 PM, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> This time around, we very much do - 13 candidates for 6 spots. Read our
> platforms and vote. :) However nobody is taking about replacing the voting
> system for the current election since the voting period is well underway.
> Let's
> hope we'll hav
Hi Josh,
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:22:32PM -0700, Josh berkus wrote:
> Do we actually have more nominees running that we have spots? Because
> if we don't this is all a pointless theoretical exercise.
This time around, we very much do - 13 candidates for 6 spots. Read our
platforms and vote. :)
Josh berkus writes:
> Do we actually have more nominees running that we have spots? Because
> if we don't this is all a pointless theoretical exercise.
Per http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2016/000398.html:
| There are 13 candidates for six posts.
As noted elsewhere in this thr
Folks,
Do we actually have more nominees running that we have spots? Because
if we don't this is all a pointless theoretical exercise.
--Josh
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes:
> I'd want to understand the implications of the switch as applied to SPI better
> than I currently do, but I'm not in theory opposed to it. I do like the idea
> of
> prioritizing people everyone can live with over everyone's ideal candidate,
> but
> I also like the idea
Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> I'd want to understand the implications of the switch as applied to
> SPI better than I currently do, but I'm not in theory opposed to
> it. I do like the idea of prioritizing people everyone can live
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:29:27PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I therefore invite the Board candidates to say right now whether they
> would support a change for the voting system to STV.
I'd want to understand the implications of the switch as applied to SPI better
than I currently do, but I'm no
On 2016-07-19 09:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
On 2016-07-18 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not pr
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 2016-07-18 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
> interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
> w
Hi Ian,
On 2016-07-18 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency in itself.
I fail to see how the system could infer any p
On 07/18/2016 06:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
> the majoritarian or consensus candidates (
On 07/18/2016 06:38 AM, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:29:27PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I don't have any objections to a change to STV; it might be interesting
to run previous votes through it to see how the outcome might have
differed. I don't have spare tuits at present
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:29:27PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I see we are still using Condorcet for the board elections.
>
> As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> composition reflects, proport
I see we are still using Condorcet for the board elections.
As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
the majoritarian or consensus ca
40 matches
Mail list logo
