Julian Mehnle says in spf-council,
The state of the art of voting methods are ranked voting methods, more
specifically Condorcet voting. Every voter may declare a ranking of all
the available options, from most desired to least desired. Then a
somewhat complex tallying process is performed, possibly using some
tie-breaking method, resulting in a set of winning options of the desired
I am very much against this idea, though I understand a desire by some
to make changes to produce solid results. My initial thought is that
the last thing that is needed is 'complex tallying process' -
simplicity and an open understandable tally means that like the first
vote everyone can check their own vote and do a tally themselves -
even if/when next time the origin of each vote is aliased.
Condorcet voting represents the voter's preferences optimally and
I obviously need to do some proper research for Condorcet but a quick
back of envelope test shows me that while Condorcet voting may be
strategy-free for a large constituency when it comes to the small number
of votes being cast here then strategy is instead magnified.
When I voted I was very happy to give equal weight to each candidate
<each candidate will have an equal vote in council, OK>, however with a
weighted <ranking whole number> vote it appears to me that only about 10
voters could be needed to work together to stuff the council with their
top five choices and get a majority installed. IMO ranking should
only ever be used for resolving a tiebreak.
Please examine and discuss more transparent and verifiable methods of
voting. I think it can be resolved what people desire to change for the
next vote including how a tiebreak should be settled. The ability for
candidates and voters to do their own check and tally with aliased vote
is top of my list.