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

From: Robert Brockway <robert(at)timetraveller(dot)org>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)
Date: 2017-03-11 02:21:10
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.11.1703111212020.28162@rigel.opentrend.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: spi-general

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Josh berkus wrote:

> On 03/07/2017 10:29 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
>> But STV is still a "single-winner" system. Any multi-winner
>> implementation of it we choose would *still* be experimental
>
> Aha, just found the multi-winner math for STV. Please ignore this part
> of my arguments. The other parts still apply.

Not sure how many people are aware of this but the Australian Senate
has been using multi-winner STV since 1948. The state of Tasmania has
been doing the same since 1907.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_the_single_transferable_vote#Australia

There has been plenty of discussion in Australia about the pros and cons
of this system going back more than a century.

Cheers,

Rob

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Valerie Young 2017-03-11 07:01:38 Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2017-03-10 16:25:37 Re: Proposed Board resolution for Board electoral system, version 20170309 (was Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system)