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

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.)

Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.

At the very least, it would seem to me prudent to craft a resolution
which includes (a) some flexibility, so that the voting system can be
changed more easily should there be reason to; and (b) which mandates
making the full list of cast ballots public, so that pathologies in
the elections can be detected.

--Barak.