From: | Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Markus Schulze <markus(dot)schulze(at)alumni(dot)tu-berlin(dot)de> |
Cc: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |
Date: | 2009-12-14 13:19:13 |
Message-ID: | 19238.15185.922870.716117@chiark.greenend.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
Markus Schulze writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> in my opinion, the Schulze STV method is
> the best multi-winner election method:
Thanks for pointing us to that. Interesting reading.
I wouldn't support such a thing for a public governmental election,
because of the need for computer involvement. Public elections should
be done with simple and readily verifiable processes - ie, pencil and
paper.
However I like the approach and I think it would work well for SPI.
It would certainly be better than the current system. I would be
happy to see Schulze STV adopted for SPI board elections.
> The Schulze STV method is very complicated because I try to create a
> multi-winner election method that minimizes all known strategic
> problems simultaneously.
Quite.
Is there any software which implements this method already ? I would
be happy to write some. Is there a standard format for STV preference
ballot input data ?
Ian.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-14 14:51:54 | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |
Previous Message | Bill Allombert | 2009-12-12 10:16:24 | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |