Just because it hasn't caused any problems yet doesn't mean it isn't broken.
My main objection to approval voting is that it makes tactical voting
almost compulsory. In reality, approval isn't a yes/no thing. It's a
spectrum and in approval voting you are forced to arbitrarily draw a line
somewhere, and you end up having to do that based on guesses about how
other people are going to vote.
On Sep 30, 2012 4:31 PM, "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
Thanks for this WSC, this is a great start. However,
I'm not sure it
describes "what's broken" with the current system - what factions do we
actually have that are under-represented in the board due to the current
I wonder whether this model actually reflects how people tend to vote in
WMUK elections. Just looking at the results, there seems to be little in
the way of factionalisation.
Would adoption of STV encourage greater factionalisation and if it does
would this be a good thing?
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:04 AM, WereSpielChequers <
Re Andrew's request for "a clear statement setting out the reasons for
The difference between STV and a majoritarian system is that if you have
a community where factions have emerged then STV ensures that all
significant factions can see someone elected who they approve of. By
contrast a majoritarian system is by its nature winner takes all and you
can have a result where everyone associated with
a particular significant viewpoint is not elected. If you are confident
that you will be in the majority then it may seem logical to support a
majoritarian system. If you aren't sure if you'd be in the majority then it
makes sense to support a system such as STV. If you are somewhat irritated
by the bickering and want a representative board with the most sensible
people regardless of their stance on certain controversies then you
desperately need a system such as STV. If in a divided organisation a
narrow majority gets a clean sweep in the elections for the committee it is
very difficult if not impossible for the resulting committee to reunite the
organisation and defuse tensions.
On 29 September 2012 21:55, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On a different note...
Regarding the switch from approval voting to STV (or whatever) what I
think is missing the most is a clear statement setting out the reasons for
the change (i.e. what's broken and how would this change fix it).
I've also suggested a tweak to the EGM motion on the page (hope this is
ok to do there)
Lastly, we could do with pencilling in a date for the EGM - how about
coinciding with the board meeting 9-10 February 2013 - and aim to do it by
electronic voting as much as possible.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
> OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules
> for STV.
Wikimedia UK mailing list
07403 216 991
Wikimedia UK mailing list