Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system

Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system"):
> Thank you Ian. Here are my remarks.
>
> On 2017-03-08 06:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Scrap this. It is superfluous and misleading (Condorcet can be fine in multi-winner elections; if this remark is based on more than how Condorcet is currently used by SPI, please elaborate).

Actually, your prompt leads me to observe that the paragraph is
inaccurate in the other direction.

The word "Condorcet" refers (everywhere else but SPI) only to a
single-winner system. The system previously used by SPI for Board
elections is a invention of SPI.

I think perhaps this paragraph should read:

1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections, but
SPI's home-grown multi-winner Condorcet variant is seriously
lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such as
SPI's Board Elections.

I guess that means I need to post another really-final-this-time
resolution text, which I will do tomorrow night UK time.

Ian.