STV (Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections))

Hi Dimitri,

On 2017-03-03 11:26, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 2 March 2017 at 18:07, Barak A. Pearlmutter <barak(at)pearlmutter(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 1 March 2017 at 13:47, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I have received tens of mails from FVC and none discussed monotonicity or
>>> any technical point.
>>> This was not a comment on the substance of Barak's claim.
>> In my discussion of these issues, I did my best to give pointers to
>> grounded technical information that shows that STV and even its
>> underlying IRV are poor voting systems, which actually exhibit major
>> pathologies in practice. (E.g., electing the least-preferred of the
>> top three mayoral candidates in Burlington Vermont; messing up when
>> presented with actual Debian Project Leader ballots; leading to
>> long-term two-party domination in the legislature using STV in
>> Australia.)
>>
> [...]
>
> STV is a voting system that strives to achieve proportional
> representation, and that's a property which is desired for the SPI
> board as it is a long-standing observation that the board is
> disproportionally Debian member heavy.

I would disagree with that. I would rather say that STV tries to improve the representativeness of representative bodies while maintaining a traditional / very simple system (although, its winner determination rules are arguably no longer "very simple").

>
[...]

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com