On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 10:00:47AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:43:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > It should be relatively straight forward for Devotee to find the > > winner, take the winner out of contention the next round, find the next > > winner (ignoring any pairwise contests dealing with any candidate no > > longer in the contest), and continue until the number of candidates > > desired has been reached. > This is no doubt true. > As I mentioned in another mail, this procedure does have the problem of not > delivering proprtional results. > A scenario. A simpler scenario. A bunch of candidates divide themselves into essentially two parties, people focussed on free software, and people focussed on our users. As it turns out, one group has 60% support within the project, the other group has 40% support within the project. There are six candidates, and three places to fill. Votes go along the lines of: 60% [ 1 ] A-1 [ 2 ] A-2 [ 3 ] A-3 [ 4 ] B-1 [ 5 ] B-2 [ 6 ] B-3 40% [ 4 ] A-1 [ 5 ] A-2 [ 6 ] A-3 [ 1 ] B-1 [ 2 ] B-2 [ 3 ] B-3 Condorcet gives the winner as A-1. Excluding A-1 gives you a Condorcet winner of A-2. Excluding A-1 and A-2 gives you a Condorcet winner of A-3. A more desirable outcome, IMO, would have given B-1 a seat in the above circumstances. Which is what proportionality is all about... Whether A is "free software" and B is "our users" or vice-versa is left as an exercise for the reader. ;) Other plausible scenarios might involve soc-ctte candidates promoting "freedom of speech" versus "improving signal:noise". Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature