Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system
ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Wed Mar 8 22:23:20 UTC 2017
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system"):
> > 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.
1. SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to our
organisation and has several problems; notably, a lack of
I obviously don't have a vendetta against Condorcet. I like Condorcet
(the single-winner system); indeed it was me that wrote it into the
Debian constitution. I do have a vendetta against SPI's
accidentally-invented and horribly broken multi-Condorcet thing, but I
guess it doesn't need to be in the resolution in quite such strong
It was a mistake of me in my previous draft to describe our system as
"Condorcet", because it's not really.
The lack of proportionality is its worst known bug.
More information about the Spi-general