> 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. ... which gives you a preface which nobody can argue with. > > 2. SPI is not equipped to effectively design or analyse voting > systems. We wish to adopt a system widely used elsewhere, and > which is recommended by civil society organisations specialising in > voting reform. > > 3. The Single Transferrable Vote is the only proportional voting > system, suitable for SPI, which meets these criteria. > > 4. The Scottish STV variant is clearly specified; we have an > established and stable Free Software implementation of it; and it > is straightforward to (re)implement. Other STV variants appear to > lack some of these good properties. > > 5. Ian Jackson has offered to help with the implementation of STV for > SPI. > > THEREFORE THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES > > 6. Future elections to the SPI Board will be counted according to the > Scottish Single Transferrable Vote. Scottish STV will also be used > by SPI for any other multi-winner election. > > 7. Specifically, the algorithm to be used is that specified in > Rules 45-52 of the Scottish Local Government Elections Order > 2007 (a UK Statutory Instrument): > > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/crossheading/counting-of-votes/made > > 8. The practical implementation will be by means of software; for > example, perhaps the openstv package in Debian. The choice of > software is up to the Secretary. However, any differences between > the Rules in the Order, and whatever software implementation is > chosen, are to be resolved in favour of the Rules. What the heck does that last sentence mean? > > 9. The SPI Secretary is requested to liase with Ian Jackson, so that > the necessary changes to SPI software and infrastructure can be > identified and implemented. > > _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
