On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.
[...]
But the key point, as discussed, is that SPI is poorly equipped to
analyse voting systems. SPI is full of technologists. We largely
lack political scientists, electoral officials, constitutional
engineers, and historians; we're probably even short of game
theoreticians.
I doubt that constitutional engineers, historians and even many electoral
officials would be equipped much better than technologists to analyze voting
systems.
[...]
We should defer the question of voting systems to well-regarded civil
organisations for whom these questions are the primary focus, and who
are thereofore more competent: that means voting reform groups.
Almost uniformly, such groups recommend STV for multi-winner
elections.[0]
Voting systems have more than a single question. It may be that other
organisations can help with ours, but in that case, it would be more useful to
mention these organizations, and even more to show their recommendations.
For the same reason, we should adopt a system which is widely used,
particularly by organisations whose governannce we expect to be
well-informed.
If argumentum ad populum is going to be a central argument in our choice, I
hope our associated projects will not take their decisional strategies from
SPI, or I very much hope that we will pick an excellent system, otherwise our
associated projects may argue they should adopt SPI's suboptimal system. If
popularity is the main criteria, at least provide a list of these organisations
and the system each one uses.
[...]
We should not be pioneering in this area. We should make use of the
expertise of others, and follow their lead.
I wonder which pioneering this refers to.
You might be right on substance, but on the form, I am surprised to see such
insistence on an argument as weak as popularity.
[...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
