[Noisebridge-discuss] voting: approval vs condorcet

[jim]

   i still like random selection best. shannon says 
we have to be careful, as the board legally has 
real power, and we have to ensure that they not 
exercise it (except as fall guys). 
   i reply that we can draft someone--"you're the 
new board member, sign this paper here that says 
you'll not do anything...", and that person can 
respond by saying "okay" and signing or "fuck you, 
i don' wanna" and not signing (and not being a 
board member). 
   random selection (drafting people) gets rid of 
the problem of evilla and her supporters being 
pissed. evilla at some point will likely be drafted 
as a board member, but how come evilla cares one 
way or another? the motivation for wanting to be a 
board seems suspect to me. 




On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 08:28 -0800, John E wrote:
> Should we simply have a consensus to confirm candidates to solve this
> issue?
> 
> 
> John
> 
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com>
> wrote:
>         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."
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss