Re: Election results

From: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <antti-juhani(at)kaijanaho(dot)fi>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Election results
Date: 2007-08-07 17:30:13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-announce spi-general

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:09:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> The one I found at
> says:

Yes, I found that too. However, it describes the single-winner method
and leaves out the crucial point: how the single-winner method is
generalized to a multiple-winner method.

There are two obvious methods:

1. The single-winner method produces a beat graph
which is (after tiebreaking) a total ordering of the candidates. Take
as many winners from the top as you need.

2. The single-winner method is used to obtain a winner. The winner is
dropped from the list of candidates, and the procedure is rerun
until one has enough winners.

Both methods are, as far as I can see, nonproportional. (The methods
might actually create the same result, but I'm too lazy to check that.)
If the voters are split into two factions, one of which is ascendant
over the another, then the majority faction can force the new board
members to all be majority candidates, and the minority faction gets
nothing. The way to do it? Supporters of the majority faction just
need to rank all majority candidates ahead of all minority candidates.

> Is that the same one discussed in
> ? (= is Jacobo Tarrio describing C/SSD? I think)

The one I discussed there is Method 2 above.

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä

Browse spi-announce by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2007-08-07 17:57:50 Re: Election results
Previous Message MJ Ray 2007-08-07 17:09:50 Re: Election results

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jimmy Kaplowitz 2007-08-07 17:32:54 Re: Making the ballots secret
Previous Message MJ Ray 2007-08-07 17:09:50 Re: Election results