policy for membership in MOTU key teams

Cody A.W. Somerville cody-somerville at ubuntu.com
Thu Jul 3 09:07:25 BST 2008


On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 July 2008 18:31, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
> >
>
<snip>

>
> In my experience Condercet methods work quick well with multiple selection
> votes too and retain their resistance to strategic voting.  In either case
> we
> wouldn't count it by hand, so the complexity of counting isn't a
> significant
> factor.
>
> Yes, Debian does like the fancy charts to prove they got a correct result.
> Here is an example (another election I was in) that shows how easy it is:
>
>
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_8e5a1ca7f86a5d5d<http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/%7Eandru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_8e5a1ca7f86a5d5d>
>
> I'd rather just use the best system to begin with rather than have to worry
> about when we need to change.


How is a Condorcet system superior exactly? According to the
Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, tactical voting is possible in all
non-dictatorial deterministic voting systems. I fail to see how it is more
resistant to strategic voting (I can describe a number of methods for you).
Furthermore, the small number of methods of tactical or strategic voting
that does exist for elections conducted using STV in general only are
effective in marginal district... but do we really need to worry so much
about strategic voting? Strategic voting really comes into play when there
are "parties" involved (we don't have that). And do we want an individual
least un-preferred (Condorcet) or most preferred (STV)?

The biggest fault that I can see with STV would be that it fails the
monotonicity criteria but it is important to note that *no* preference
voting system satisfies all the criteria described in Arrow's impossibility
theorem. For example with Schulze (the actual system I think you're
proposing) it fails to meet independence of irrelevant alternatives,
participation, consistency, invulnerability to compromising, invulnerability
to burying, and later-no-harm criteria.

And to hit the simple point home a bit more, don't you think we'd all have a
bit more faith in a system that we could actually figure out the result on
our own? Personally, I don't want my vote going into some black box which
magically produces a set of winning candidates.

I'm not suggesting that STV is the choice we go with but I don't think
Condorcet is either "just because".


>
>
> Scott K
>
> --
> Ubuntu-motu mailing list
> Ubuntu-motu at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
>



-- 
Cody A.W. Somerville
Software Engineer
Red Cow Marketing & Technologies, Inc.
Office: 506-458-1290
Toll Free: 1-877-733-2699
Fax: 506-453-9112
Cell: 506-449-5899
Email: cody at redcow.ca
http://www.redcow.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080703/85c750de/attachment.htm 


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list