Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system

On 03/08/2017 02:23 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system"):
>>> WHEREAS
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Please cut this paragraph and replace. As written, the paragraph is a
>> source of argument over factors which have little or nothing to do with
>> actually replacing the voting system. Frankly, it reads like a partisan
>> vendetta against concordet. I suggest instead:
>>
>> 1. SPI's concordet voting system is unique to our organization and
>> has had several issues over the years.
>
> How about
>
> 1. SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to our
> organisation and has several problems; notably, a lack of
> proportionality.

Thing is, you don't have general agreement that (a) proportionality is a
good thing or (b) that STV is a proportional vote system. So the above
just invites arguments on both points (from me, and from others), and
you don't need agreement on that to pass the motion.

The reason why I'll feel compelled to argue is that I do not believe
that "more proportionality" is a direction SPI should move into,
especially if three years from now we're talking about adopting another
new system. For example, someone could use point (1) to argue that
really we should move to parlimentary system with "parties".

Isn't it enough to say "our existing system is wonky and idiosyntatic,
and we want to adopt something with general support"? That's something
nobody can disagree with.

I feel like you're trying to prove some kind of a moral point in what
should be purely a practical motion.