On 17 September 2012 23:29, Katie Chan <k...@ktchan.info> wrote: > On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote: > >> Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is >> that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the >> current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for >> STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be >> happy to draft election rules for them. >> > > Well, the WMF use the Schulze method [1] for its board election so that > could be considered as an option. > > KTC > > [1]: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Schulze_method<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method> > >
I'm very keen that the election method we choose is (in theory) hand-countable (that's one reason why I propose STV-ERS97 rather than a different variant (the other is that I've been counting elections under STV-ERS97 since 1998...)). Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box churns out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case. That said, I'm still happy to draft rules for Schulze if there's demand for it. I'll have to reread that article in the morning as I mostly failed to understand it at this time of night! J.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
