Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system

Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system"):
> Thing is, you don't have general agreement that (a) proportionality is a
> good thing or (b) that STV is a proportional vote system. So the above
> just invites arguments on both points (from me, and from others), and
> you don't need agreement on that to pass the motion.

Nevertheless, my perception is that the Board thinks that
proportionality is a good thing. When drafting a Board resolution
it seems appropriate to me to explain the motivation.

Of course it's difficult to know exactly which possible motives were
behind the decisons of a collective body like the Board. But the in
the discussions in July and August, proportionality was a very big
factor. I gave, then, several example scenarios showing the
nonproportionality of our existing system, which seemed to me to be
very effective at convincing the people I wanted to convince.

If the Board does not think that proportionality is a good thing then
they should reconsider whether following my advice is right. IMO the
main practical problem with our existing system is its
nonproportionality (and consequent homogeneity of outcomes). The main
difference in real election outcomes if my proposal is adopted will be
increased proportionality (and therefore, a potential increase in
diversity).

(That STV is a roughly proportional system is simply a fact. Anyone
who thinks otherwise is confused or worse. The proportionality is
limited by a kind of rounding error: if you elect only three seats at
a time, the outcome proportions are obviously limited to thirds.)

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.