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. SPI's homegrown
multi-Condorcet is a winning-faction-takes-all system.
Here is an example I posted in July, again:
Suppose there are 3 seats up for grabs, and red, pink, and blue board
candidates, 3 in each colour. If the electorate votes along colour
lines:
60 voters blue > pink > red
40 voters red > pink > blue
Then the outcome with SPI's multi-Condorcet is:
blue, blue, blue
That is precisely the winning faction taking all.
The outcome with STV is:
blue, red, blue
> > I am trying to switch from "cool voting tech" to something boring.
>
> But STV is still a "single-winner" system. Any multi-winner
> implementation of it we choose would *still* be experimental.
Seriously ?!
STV is not a single-winner system. STV is the popular multi-winner
extension to AV (the single-winner system "Alternative Vote", which is
known in the US as "IRV").
STV is far from experimental. Did you not spot that my draft
resolution refers to a UK Statutory Instrument (ie, government
legislation) from 2007 ?
> In fact, looking over your posts to spi-general and spi-private, I can't
> find one which does actually fully lay out what specific voting
> mechanics you're proposing. I may have missed it because I was off
> spi-private for a month or so; can you please link your paper explaining it?
Please see my draft resolution.
I will repost it in a moment (with the numbering fixed).
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
