Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Markus Schulze <markus(dot)schulze(at)alumni(dot)tu-berlin(dot)de>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV
Date: 2009-12-14 13:19:13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Markus Schulze writes ("Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV"):
> in my opinion, the Schulze STV method is
> the best multi-winner election method:

Thanks for pointing us to that. Interesting reading.

I wouldn't support such a thing for a public governmental election,
because of the need for computer involvement. Public elections should
be done with simple and readily verifiable processes - ie, pencil and

However I like the approach and I think it would work well for SPI.
It would certainly be better than the current system. I would be
happy to see Schulze STV adopted for SPI board elections.

> The Schulze STV method is very complicated because I try to create a
> multi-winner election method that minimizes all known strategic
> problems simultaneously.


Is there any software which implements this method already ? I would
be happy to write some. Is there a standard format for STV preference
ballot input data ?



Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-12-14 14:51:54 Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV
Previous Message Bill Allombert 2009-12-12 10:16:24 Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV