On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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 a concern about this: If, for example, there were an issue that sharply divides the SPI membership say 66% to 33%, an STV election would elect 6 board members in favor of A and 3 in favor of B, whereas a Condorcet election might elect 9 in favor of A. The problem with the STV board would be that they would constantly disagree with each other instead of getting work done. An analogy in "real" politics is: A parliament should generally reflect the population's wishes proportionally, but the executive is generally drawn only from one or a few aligned parties. Maybe this isn't a problem in practice, or maybe you/some actually want to the board to work that way, but I think we should consider what the nature of the board is or should be, and which election method best realizes that. _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
