Shane Rush [shane(_at_)red(_dot_)nymcity(_dot_)com] wrote:
My comments are caused by my not seeing a council vote that the voting
system used the first time around needed changing. Your post in
spf-council therefore looks out of place, I'd have expected a council
call for discussion in spf.discuss to canvas alternative solutions where
your post would have been very helpful.
Well, as I have explained before, some of the community elected the
council to set up the rules for future elections, among other things. The
council and the community will surely discuss whether the simple approval
voting system we used for the first election is sufficient or whether we
should use a more sophisticated voting system. The discussion has even
already begun within the community. I don't see a problem here.
Julian Mehnle wrote:
The fact that conventional voting methods are even simpler than
Condorcet voting is the very reason for them being flawed. Please
read the Wikipedia articles I referred to, they're really not that
long.
I don't have a problem with this....... my problem is that I see your
post and Mark Shewmaker's example as seeking to solve a voting problem
that doesn't exist, namely adding weight to votes to create a clear
winner.
The point of adding weight to the votes (not to the electees, though!)
through ranked voting is not to create a clear winner. You can have a
clear winner without ranked voting, see Russia. The point is to make the
vote more fair, i.e. to allow the voters to better state their preferences
than approval voting allows, and to remove the incentive for strategic
voting.
As above (and reply to Mark) ranking is the wrong tool for the job,
choosing one absolute winner from a 5:5 choice (5 voters/5 choices) is
totaly different from 200+ voters choosing 5 from 12 and eliminating the
7 with the lowest votes where we are not looking for a clear winner.
So what? Condorcet voting works well for both single-winner and
multi-winner elections.
Ranking candidates for council membership differently doesn't imply
giving them different legitimacy.
It should not, but in practice allows someone with higher ranked vote
to put pressure on someone with a lower vote level. There is then
less incentive to perform as a team and judge on topics on merit.
I don't see that. Besides, what's the difference to the current
situation? I mean, Meng got twice as many votes as Chuck, Mark, or I did.
So far he hasn't put any pressure on us.
[...] See who gets powerful jobs but with less popular vote from their
party. I see anything that seeks to do anything more than select 5
council members as divisive to the future performance of the council,
and a closer vote among the top 5 as helpful.
But the approval voting method we used for the first election also does
this! That's inevitable in multi-winner elections.
Julian Mehnle,
SPF Council Member.