Condorcet whereas (Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system)

On 2017-03-08 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

That sounds redundant ("*multi-winner* system is problematic in *multi-winner* elections").
Your disagreement seems purely terminological (I would say that a Condorcet method can choose several winners, but these winners need to be a part of a set offered as a single option, e.g. {President Ian Jackson, Secretary of State Mike Pence}).

I still suggest simply dropping this whereas, or replacing with just "The voting system used SPI's Board Elections should yield a board as representative as possible.", but your suggestion is already much better, and non-misleading.

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