----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Rush" <shane(_at_)red(_dot_)nymcity(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Condorcet Voting for Council Elections and
Council Votes
Mmm... Let me start again.
The council can easily call for discussion in spf.discuss if it thinks
there is demand to change the voting system next time. I clearly hope
that this does not happen.
I am disappointed that Julian posted to spf-council when a post to
spf.discuss as a list member would have been appropriate if he wants
to gain support for a change.
John organised a very efficient transparent vote that can be used safely
again. A couple of constructive comments were made:
1. voters using proxy - expected that is why voting tokens were sent
to voters list addresses - IP's only useful to spot spoof attempts and
some small code changes will make this work better.
Already done. :-)
2. some people voted without names - due to errors in the listserver
data - this would have happened for any other voting system.
List members who didn't have a pretty name on the list were forced to create
a prettyname for themselves when they voted - for the purposes of
identification without exposing email addresses.
Monday, December 13, 2004, 7:14:04 AM, Mark wrote:
MS> I'm curious as to whether you will still have these strategy-related
MS> concerns after you do this research.
Quite possibly but I was not interested in pushing my own opinions in
my original post, other than to suggest that ranked voting for small votes
appears to work poorly. I desired to grab some experiences from those
who
have used Condorcet.
I fail to see any reason to move from a one member one vote system that
works well for vaste parts of the world. While I don't know about
Condorcet,
I do know about ranked voting at small organisations over the years - none
tried the experiment more than once.
Finally, I would have been pleased to vote for any of the contenders in
the
shortlist but chose those that I thought would operate best as a team.
If we need a tie-break this can be done without fuss and an extra layer of
complexity.
I am happy to incorporate the opportunity to vote for more than one option -
so a voter could choose 3 out of 5, or maybe all 5, in order of preference,
and the result is based on the preferences. This eliminates tactical voting
and is easy to build in to the existing voting system.
If that's what you mean by "Concorcet voting" - then it's a breeze :-)
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492