[Noisebridge-discuss] voting: approval vs condorcet

[Shannon Lee]

It seems to me that Evilla and her supporters are likely to be quite pissed
that she got 60% of the vote and lost.

It does seem like this is a "prevent bad people from getting on the board"
use case rather than a "pick the best people for the board" use case, which
is closer to what we want for the board...

Although in this case, Evilla does win the second round, because poor
Charlie doesn't get hardly any votes...

--S

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:

> I've been looking into Leif's argument that approval voting is a better
> fit for Noisebridge's philosophy than the Condorcet method we used last
> year.
>
> I have an example that makes me think he might be right.
>
> However, voting system examples are tricksy things, and I'd appreciate
> another set of eyes.  Also, my example is for a single-winner election
> whereas our election is for a 5-member board, and few of the voting
> system examples address multi-winner elections.
>
> My example follows.  Note that approval voting can be implemented by
> Condorcet if weights are limited to {0, 1}.
>
> % cat divisive.ballot
> Position: Board
> Candidates:  Bob Charlie Evillia
>
> # 60% of the voters think Evillia is the best candidate, but the other
> # 40% think she'd be terrible.  80% agrees that Bob would be a
> # reasonable candidate, across both sides.
>
> 2 - 1
> 2 - 1
> 2 - 1
> 2 - 1
> - - 1
> - 1 1
> 1 - -
> 1 2 -
> 1 2 -
> 1 2 -
> % ./election.py divisive.ballot
> Election results saved to: 2010-12-30-Board.txt
> #     Winner: Evillia
> % sed s/2/1/g < divisive.ballot > approval.ballot
> % ./election.py approval.ballot
> Election results saved to: 2010-12-30-Board.txt
> #     Winner: Bob
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -andy
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>



-- 
Shannon Lee
(503) 539-3700

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20101230/d881fe6c/attachment-0003.html>