I have a preference for the Schulze method as well, since it is generally superior to many other methods, even if somewhat opaque in its mechanism. Examining the comparisons at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table should give an indication of its strengths. The only problem is likely to be finding a good implementation in software. There is a refinement of Schulze described at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV which has a python implementation at https://github.com/bradbeattie/python-vote-core/blob/master/pyvotecore/schulze_stv.pybut more interestingly, an online voting service at https://modernballots.com/ Thoughts? -- Doug 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> > > > > -- > Experience is a good school but the fees are high. > - Heinrich Heine > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
