Open Stack

> On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Simon Anderson <simon at dreamhost.com> wrote:
> 
> This is a very insightful perspective Thierry. Thanks for sharing it!

+1. Thanks!

> 
> 
> Best,
> Simon Anderson
> CEO, DreamHost
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>> Hi election committee,
>> 
>> I have a few insights on those various election systems due to past
>> experience and Monty suggested that I shared them with the group.
>> 
>> Ranked voting systems are intrinsically superior to first-past-the-post
>> or cumulative systems because they let you express a complex preference,
>> and adding more candidates doesn't disrupt your ability to express that
>> preference. In ranked voting systems, more choice is actually always better.
>> 
>> That said, all ranked voting systems are not created equal. You should
>> pick one based on the intended results.
>> 
>> STV is designed for proportional representation of factions. It favors
>> candidates coming from those factions at the expense of consensus
>> candidates.
>> 
>> Condorcet favors consensus candidates and "natural" winners (the
>> Condorcet winner), at the expense of giving each faction its representant.
>> 
>> In a very simplified and inaccurate summary, given B>A>C and C>A>B
>> ballots, STV tends to pick B&C while Condorcet tends to pick A.
>> 
>> There is not a "bad" system and a "good" system, choosing between them
>> depends on the intended results. If the election is all about factions
>> and giving them fair representation, then STV is better. If the election
>> is about individuals and picking the most consensual candidates, then
>> Condorcet is better.
>> 
>> I tend to think that for this specific election (directors representing
>> the individual members, not any faction), Condorcet would yield better
>> results.
>> 
>> NB: there is an experimental "proportional Condorcet" algorithm at CIVS
>> that might make the best of both worlds, but it hasn't been as
>> battle-tested as STV and Condorcet. We will be running the TC ballot
>> through it to see how it affects the results and report back. I don't
>> think such an experimental algorithm should be under consideration for
>> the Foundation board.
>> 
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elections-committee mailing list
>> Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Elections-committee mailing list
> Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131015/2b11ad9c/attachment.html>