Monday, December 13, 2004, 9:23:07 PM, Julian wrote:
JM> Well, as I have explained before, some of the community elected the
JM> council to set up the rules for future elections, among other things.
I agree with this!
JM> council and the community will surely discuss whether the simple approval
JM> voting system we used for the first election is sufficient or whether we
JM> should use a more sophisticated voting system. The discussion has even
JM> already begun within the community. I don't see a problem here.
Nor do I, the problem is that the council is very willing to push
topics to spf.discuss but that mechanism was not used in this case
to examine which changes to make if any, garner support or information
on other voting mechanisms.
I have stated a couple of times that your post would have been very
useful to seed discussion here and allow you to press the advantages
of your suggested alternative, that is now happening.
As posted it appeared to me that the next step was a straight vote
to adopt Condorcet in council without discusion opportunity being
passed in this direction.
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.
JM> So what? Condorcet voting works well for both single-winner and
JM> multi-winner elections.
Yes but now it is clear that there are different versions of Condorcet
for each task - which I might agree - but both You and Mark are still
trying to sell a universal all singing solution.
Please state clearly which version/method of Condorcet you suggest for
council meetings and which version/method you suggest for candidate
voting. You may find that we are not so far apart after all, but I
do need to know which page you are reading before I can form an
opinion for each usage.
Shane