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

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

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

Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"): > Concordet is not a winning-faction-take-all system. It is a "most > acceptable candidate" system. Which kinda makes this argument invalid. Condorcet is a s

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

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.

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

On 03/07/2017 10:13 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting > algorithm for Board elections)"): >> So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems >> terribly persuasive compared with jus

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

Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"): > So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems > terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and > fixing the problem with

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

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 08:50:09PM -0800, Josh berkus wrote: > So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems > terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and > fixing the problem with unranked candidates FWIW this is already fixed; the current system

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

Ian, All: So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and fixing the problem with unranked candidates (and maybe providing a slightly better UI). Yes, we could use a different system, but why? The system we

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

On 4 March 2017 at 13:01, Markus Schulze wrote: > I recommend Schulze STV. It is a very nice algorithm, which does about as well as any polynomial-time algorithm could using rank ballots. It certainly overcomes a lot of the practical pathologies in ScottishSTV

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

On 3 March 2017 at 22:05, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > Dimitri, > > Of course we're discussing multiwinner systems: systems that elect > k-of-n people to a board, where k>1. > > As you note, when k=n the election is uncontested so there is no need > for any voting system.

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

Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"): > Purely as a FYI on Schulze method, it is implemented in the Liquid > Feedback system: http://liquidfeedback.org/ Thanks. That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

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

Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"): > I have backed up my statements with pointers, either direct or nearly so, to > primary analyses and scientific literature. > > If the analytical approa

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

I would caution readers against taking Barak's assertions at face value. Many of them, including some of the underlying factual assertions, are flat-out wrong; and the analytical approach is fundamentally flawed. Ian. I have backed up my statements with pointers, either direct or nearly so, to

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

Hallo, I recommend Schulze STV. This method is described mainly in section 9 of this paper: http://m-schulze.9mail.de/verylong.pdf Source codes can be found here: http://m-schulze.9mail.de/schulze3.zip multi01g.cpp is multi-threading for g++. multi01v.cpp is multi-threading for Microsoft

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

Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"): > [more range voting advocacy] I will spare the readers of spi-general a point-by-point rebuttal. I would caution readers against taking Barak's assertions at face

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

Dimitri, Of course we're discussing multiwinner systems: systems that elect k-of-n people to a board, where k>1. As you note, when k=n the election is uncontested so there is no need for any voting system. In the Burlington election discussed, k=1 and n=3. That's about the simplest situation

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

On 3 March 2017 at 13:46, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: >> You are advocating range voting. I remain convinced that range voting >> is a terrible voting system, because all but the most tactically aware >> voters will cast hopelessly ineffective ballots. This criticism >>

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

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:28:53AM -0500, Hilmar Lapp wrote: > >I think it’s great that people are speaking up here with their >thoughts on this matter, even if they rehash arguments that have been >discussed ad nauseam earlier. > >I think it’s also reasonable to expect that those arguments won’t

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

> You are advocating range voting. I remain convinced that range voting > is a terrible voting system, because all but the most tactically aware > voters will cast hopelessly ineffective ballots. This criticism > applies less to approval voting, but approval voting still involves a > lot of

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

On 1 March 2017 at 13:47, Filipus Klutiero 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

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

I think it’s great that people are speaking up here with their thoughts on this matter, even if they rehash arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam earlier. I think it’s also reasonable to expect that those arguments won’t be entertained again by everyone else at the same depth that they

Concorcet methods (was Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections))

On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote: Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"): Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any technical grounds, either now or in the prev

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

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:18:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > The choice of voting system should not be left to the Secretary. Currently, > the proposal is to have the Board select STV. If a future Board wants to > change its mind and select something else in future, then that is quite >

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

Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"): > Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any > technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion. I'm sorry that

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

Hi Joshua, Ian, On 2017-02-28 12:57, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 02/28/2017 09:38 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 02/28/2017 07:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm