2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections

The board recognizes the deficiencies of the current voting algorithm
utilized for Board elections as being inappropriate for multi-seat
elections. After careful consideration, we recognize and acknowledge
the evidence presented and we support updating the voting algorithm.

Given that the voting algorithm is established via a Board resolution
and given the extensive analysis undertaken by Ian Jackson, we invite
Ian to draft a resolution to replace the existing Condrocet-based
voting algorithm with a more appropriate algorithm, taking into
account any existing feedback from spi-general, in time for the March
meeting (2017-MAR-13).

The Board invites members to provide commentary between the March and
April board meetings.

The Board intends to vote on the resolution at our April meeting (date
TBD) so that we may implement it in time for the 2017 elections.

Regards,

Dimitri
on behalf of the SPI Board of Directors

On 18 July 2016 at 09:29, Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
>
> I see we are still using Condorcet for the board elections.
>
> As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
> the majoritarian or consensus candidates (as applicable) will sweep
> the board.
>
> I have previously proposed that we should drop Condorcet in favour of
> the Single Transferrable Vote.
>
> Last time we had this conversation we got bogged down in a pile of
> voting system wonkery.
>
> I still think we should drop Condorcet in favour of STV. We should
> drop it in favour of STV as defined by the UK Electoral Reform
> Society, who have a clear description. The UK ERS rules have broad
> legitimacy and standing through their adoption by many organisations.
> (We'd obviously want to ignore the bits of the ERS definition which
> talk about the handling of paper ballots.)
>
> We should avoid getting distracted by arguments that some subtle
> variant may be better. It is too late for this election but I think
> it is imperative that we fix this for the next SPI board election.
>
> This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
> interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
> which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency in itself.
>
> I therefore invite the Board candidates to say right now whether they
> would support a change for the voting system to STV.
>
> Thanks,
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general

--
Regards,

Dimitri.