Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)
steve at einval.com
Fri Mar 3 15:33:54 UTC 2017
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:28:53AM -0500, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>I think it’s great that people are speaking up here with their
>thoughts on this matter, even if they rehash arguments that have been
>discussed ad nauseam earlier.
>I think it’s also reasonable to expect that those arguments won’t be
>entertained again by everyone else at the same depth that they have
>been previously, lest a process many here (including myself) are
>keenly interested in seeing result in change before the next round of
>elections be derailed into an infinite rehash of arguments and
>Since my viewpoint on this doesn’t seem to be one that has been
>expressed as vociferously here yet, I’ll say that I agree quite
>strongly with both Ian’s voting system proposal, as well as his
>reasons for why we should adopt it.
+1. All the data I've seen personally tells me that STV is a good
option for our kind of setup. I'm not a total voting geek, but this
looks fine to me.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve at einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...
More information about the Spi-general