Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system

[Josh berkus]

> WHEREAS
> 
> 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.

Please cut this paragraph and replace.  As written, the paragraph is a
source of argument over factors which have little or nothing to do with
actually replacing the voting system.  Frankly, it reads like a partisan
vendetta against concordet.  I suggest instead:

1. SPI's concordet voting system is unique to our organization and
   has had several issues over the years.

... which gives you a preface which nobody can argue with.

> 
> 2. SPI is not equipped to effectively design or analyse voting
>    systems.  We wish to adopt a system widely used elsewhere, and
>    which is recommended by civil society organisations specialising in
>    voting reform.
> 
> 3. The Single Transferrable Vote is the only proportional voting
>    system, suitable for SPI, which meets these criteria.
> 
> 4. The Scottish STV variant is clearly specified; we have an
>    established and stable Free Software implementation of it; and it
>    is straightforward to (re)implement.  Other STV variants appear to
>    lack some of these good properties.
> 
> 5. Ian Jackson has offered to help with the implementation of STV for
>    SPI.
> 
> THEREFORE THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES
> 
> 6. Future elections to the SPI Board will be counted according to the
>    Scottish Single Transferrable Vote.  Scottish STV will also be used
>    by SPI for any other multi-winner election.
> 
> 7. Specifically, the algorithm to be used is that specified in
>    Rules 45-52 of the Scottish Local Government Elections Order
>    2007 (a UK Statutory Instrument):
>       http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/crossheading/counting-of-votes/made
> 
> 8. The practical implementation will be by means of software; for
>    example, perhaps the openstv package in Debian.  The choice of
>    software is up to the Secretary.  However, any differences between
>    the Rules in the Order, and whatever software implementation is
>    chosen, are to be resolved in favour of the Rules.

What the heck does that last sentence mean?

> 
> 9. The SPI Secretary is requested to liase with Ian Jackson, so that
>    the necessary changes to SPI software and infrastructure can be
>    identified and implemented.
> 
>