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. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such
as SPI's Board Elections.
Scrap this. It is superfluous and misleading (Condorcet can be fine in
multi-winner elections; if this remark is based on more than how Condorcet is
currently used by SPI, please elaborate).
Actually, your prompt leads me to observe that the paragraph is
inaccurate in the other direction.
The word "Condorcet" refers (everywhere else but SPI) only to a
single-winner system. The system previously used by SPI for Board
elections is a invention of SPI.
I think perhaps this paragraph should read:
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections, but
SPI's home-grown multi-winner Condorcet variant is seriously
lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such as
SPI's Board Elections.
That sounds redundant ("*multi-winner* system is problematic in *multi-winner*
elections").
Your disagreement seems purely terminological (I would say that a Condorcet
method can choose several winners, but these winners need to be a part of a set
offered as a single option, e.g. {President Ian Jackson, Secretary of State
Mike Pence}).
I still suggest simply dropping this whereas, or replacing with just "The voting
system used SPI's Board Elections should yield a board as representative as
possible.", but your suggestion is already much better, and non-misleading.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
