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.

... which gives you a preface which nobody can argue with.

>
> 2. SPI is not equipped to effectively design or analyse voting
> systems. We wish to adopt a system widely used elsewhere, and
> which is recommended by civil society organisations specialising in
> voting reform.
>
> 3. The Single Transferrable Vote is the only proportional voting
> system, suitable for SPI, which meets these criteria.
>
> 4. The Scottish STV variant is clearly specified; we have an
> established and stable Free Software implementation of it; and it
> is straightforward to (re)implement. Other STV variants appear to
> lack some of these good properties.
>
> 5. Ian Jackson has offered to help with the implementation of STV for
> SPI.
>
> THEREFORE THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES
>
> 6. Future elections to the SPI Board will be counted according to the
> Scottish Single Transferrable Vote. Scottish STV will also be used
> by SPI for any other multi-winner election.
>
> 7. Specifically, the algorithm to be used is that specified in
> Rules 45-52 of the Scottish Local Government Elections Order
> 2007 (a UK Statutory Instrument):
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/crossheading/counting-of-votes/made
>
> 8. The practical implementation will be by means of software; for
> example, perhaps the openstv package in Debian. The choice of
> software is up to the Secretary. However, any differences between
> the Rules in the Order, and whatever software implementation is
> chosen, are to be resolved in favour of the Rules.

What the heck does that last sentence mean?

>
> 9. The SPI Secretary is requested to liase with Ian Jackson, so that
> the necessary changes to SPI software and infrastructure can be
> identified and implemented.
>
>