Re: Call for votes for SPI board of directors membership election

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:42:34AM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:29:18AM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> > Real Condorcet doesn't have a way of specifying equal preferences, and
> > before we decided to use the modified method I'd want to see some
> > mathematically rigorous comparison of our modified version and the
> > standard version to see how the modifications can affect the outcome
> > and what effect that has on Kenneth Arrow's famous criteria for
> > election fairness.
>
> Clarification: true Condorcet does allow you to say "I have no
> preference between A and B." (That's what a vote of CD or DC would say.)
> It does not allow you to say "I prefer D equally much over A, B, and C."
> Also, Kenneth Arrow's theorem doesn't apply to systems like Condorcet
> where partially completed ballots are accepted. But, the Condorcet
> method has been well and rigorously studied by many people worldwide,
> and there have been evaluations of its fairness (by several different
> criteria, I'm sure), and among the election methods cognoscenti it is
> the most recommended method for fair elections. The same is not true for
> Debian's method; it has been discussed by laymen who haven't really done
> a rigorous or detailed study of all the ramifications, but it has only
> been used in one organization with one set of requirements, and may skew
> the results from what would be desired in some as yet unforseen way.
> This is what I'm pointing out in the above paragraph.

I completly agree with the above.

I would just add that in Debian election only one option wins whereas
in SPI 3 options over 4 win. That make the process more likely to
end in a corner case for the algorithm if partial vote are accepted.

Also, it very important to teach voters that Condorcet system do not
allow for strategic voting and that they should vote sincerly instead
of strategically.

Cheers,
Bill