Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them.
However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use...
On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM.
I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM.
All contributions are welcome.
-- Doug
On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)?
There has been no progress. :-)
Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions.
Thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages.
J.
On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them.
However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use...
On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM.
I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM.
All contributions are welcome.
-- Doug
On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)?
There has been no progress. :-)
Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions.
Thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
James,
"Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a tie, a teller shall draw lots prior to announcing the result. The announcement of the results shall include a statement indicating which of the elected candidates are required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting."
This is not the spirit of STV/ERS97. The algorithm produces a strict order of preference (ie. order of election) of the candidates, which we should use to determine who gets a longer term.
(Ref: ERS97 5.1.7: Considering each candidate in turn in descending order of their votes, deem elected any candidate whose vote equals or exceeds (a) the quota[...])
If we want to preserve the "approval voting" element of the election, a "RON" (re-open nomination) candidate may be introduced to the election. Once RON is declared elected, its place and all subsequent (unfilled) places are declared re-open.
Deryck
On 17 September 2012 23:26, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages.
J.
On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them.
However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use...
On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM.
I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM.
All contributions are welcome.
-- Doug
On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)?
There has been no progress. :-)
Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions.
Thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17 September 2012 23:57, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
James,
"Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a tie, a teller shall draw lots prior to announcing the result. The announcement of the results shall include a statement indicating which of the elected candidates are required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting."
This is not the spirit of STV/ERS97. The algorithm produces a strict order of preference (ie. order of election) of the candidates, which we should use to determine who gets a longer term.
(Ref: ERS97 5.1.7: Considering each candidate in turn in descending order of their votes, deem elected any candidate whose vote equals or exceeds (a) the quota[...])
Actually, having thought about it, I'm not at all sure that is the case. It doesn't follow, for instance, that the "first" elected candidate would be the AV winner. Arguably the consistent solution would be to recount the election for the smaller number of winners.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages.
I'd prefer an online system (e.g. as in en:WP arbcom elections) to one involving ballot papers.
A.
On 18 September 2012 03:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages.
I'd prefer an online system (e.g. as in en:WP arbcom elections) to one involving ballot papers.
A most novel and imaginative proposal.
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.
Regards,
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages.
J.
On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them.
However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use...
On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM.
I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM.
All contributions are welcome.
-- Doug
On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)?
There has been no progress. :-)
Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions.
Thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On the first point, granted. I'll attempt to come up with a clearer description.
I don't think that an instruction from the members to the Board to make a particular purchase sets a precedent that all Board purchases must be authorised by the membership. Would appreciate Office input on this point though.
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:55, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com 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.
Regards,
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages.
J.
On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them.
However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use...
On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the near future to organise an EGM.
I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM.
All contributions are welcome.
-- Doug
On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote: Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this.
On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote: Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the board is concerned)?
There has been no progress. :-)
Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions.
Thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re Andrew's request for "a clear statement setting out the reasons for the change".
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.
WSC
On 29 September 2012 21:55, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
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.
Regards,
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
Thank you for this. From my viewpoint your explanation (with which I agree) is a strong arugment for STV. Doug
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:04 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Re Andrew's request for "a clear statement setting out the reasons for the change".
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.
WSC
On 29 September 2012 21:55, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com 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.
Regards,
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Weller" dougweller@gmail.com To: "UK Wikimedia mailing list" wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 30 September, 2012 6:35:55 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
Thank you for this. From my viewpoint your explanation (with which I agree) is a strong arugment for STV.
From my own experience, I would note that whilst STV is perfect for electing a single person it is very far from acceptable when electing a number of people because of the requirement to survive the first round of analysis. If someone has minimal support as a first choice but very wide support as a second or third choice they may be ejected before that wide support can be accounted for, especially if one candidate in the first round takes 80% or so of the first choices (making their distributed partial second preferences far 'stronger', in effect.) I have seen almost entire committees wiped out in this way despite - once you looked at the lower-preference votes - them retaining wide support. STV really isn't up to the job.
Approval voting, whilst itself not perfect, does far better at selecting for a number of positions.
AlisonW
I missed a bit...
On 1 October 2012 18:31, Alison M. Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.comwrote:
I have seen almost entire committees wiped out in this way despite - once you looked at the lower-preference votes - them retaining wide support.
The two-year term mitigates aginst this.
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 system?
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 < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Re Andrew's request for "a clear statement setting out the reasons for the change".
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.
WSC
On 29 September 2012 21:55, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
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.
Regards,
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
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@googlemail.com wrote:
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 system?
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 < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Re Andrew's request for "a clear statement setting out the reasons for the change".
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.
WSC
On 29 September 2012 21:55, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
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.
Regards,
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Gordo
Is that when the candidates put their head under a sharp pointy obejct and we see who has the thickest neck?
On 2 October 2012 14:32, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Seems a little drastic to chop the heads off the losing candidates ;-0
On 2 October 2012 14:49, Alison M. Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Seems a little drastic to chop the heads off the losing candidates ;-0
Recent evidence suggests that it is the heads of the winning candidates which are at risk.
Well, certainly at some point the Board will call an EGM and so I strongly suggest anyone with alternative systems to be discussed mention them soon.
As it stands we'll be choosing between Approval, STV and Schulze.
On 2 October 2012 14:32, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
If we pencil in 9-10 Feb for the EGM then we have until, say, the end of November to discuss and agree on the proposal. I do think we need to have a reasoned argument set out in favour of the change before we call the EGM itself - after all a constitution is not something that we should tinker with lightly, hence the requirement for it to pass with a 75% change.
I've started this:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewRT/Why_change_the_voting_system#What...
bringing together the arguments that various people have already made on this list. Please go ahead and expand!
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Gordo
On 02/10/12 23:03, Andrew Turvey wrote:
after all a constitution is not something that we should tinker with lightly, hence the requirement for it to pass with a 75% change.
75% of those present and voting (and those voting by proxy?)?
Gordo
On 03/10/2012 07:41, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 02/10/12 23:03, Andrew Turvey wrote:
after all a constitution is not something that we should tinker with lightly, hence the requirement for it to pass with a 75% change.
75% of those present and voting (and those voting by proxy?)?
Not less than 75% of those voting (by whatever means). - http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2009_AGM/Resolutions#Requiring_the_permission_of_the_members_to_amend_the_Election_Rules - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/283
KTC
On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them.
Well, the WMF use the Schulze method [1] for its board election so that could be considered as an option.
KTC
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
On 17 September 2012 23:29, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft election rules for them.
Well, the WMF use the Schulze method [1] for its board election so that could be considered as an option.
KTC
I'm very keen that the election method we choose is (in theory) hand-countable (that's one reason why I propose STV-ERS97 rather than a different variant (the other is that I've been counting elections under STV-ERS97 since 1998...)).
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box churns out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case.
That said, I'm still happy to draft rules for Schulze if there's demand for it. I'll have to reread that article in the morning as I mostly failed to understand it at this time of night!
J.
On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box churns out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case.
+1. Oh my goodness yes.
The Open Rights Group adopted a system that was so ridiculously geeky ... I helped do the count for the last board election (i.e., typed the paper votes into a spreadsheet), I wrote the guide to how the ORG voting system works and I still don't really understand it. Don't let geeks too near the system! Perfect is the enemy of comprehensible!
(The votes and the software were made available for examination and running oneself, but that's not IMO as good as a system we can understand. But the system is specified in the ORG constitution, so we're stuck with it. http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/board-election-result )
- d.
+2
On 18 September 2012 08:43, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box
churns
out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case.
+1. Oh my goodness yes.
The Open Rights Group adopted a system that was so ridiculously geeky ... I helped do the count for the last board election (i.e., typed the paper votes into a spreadsheet), I wrote the guide to how the ORG voting system works and I still don't really understand it. Don't let geeks too near the system! Perfect is the enemy of comprehensible!
(The votes and the software were made available for examination and running oneself, but that's not IMO as good as a system we can understand. But the system is specified in the ORG constitution, so we're stuck with it. http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/board-election-result )
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 18 September 2012 08:50, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
+2
On 18 September 2012 08:43, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers
to
the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box
churns
out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case.
+1. Oh my goodness yes.
Multi-seat STV/ERS97 is just about hand-countable... with the tellers having to edit the ballot paper's values regularly during a transfer of surplus.
The Open Rights Group adopted a system that was so ridiculously geeky ... I helped do the count for the last board election (i.e., typed the paper votes into a spreadsheet), I wrote the guide to how the ORG voting system works and I still don't really understand it. Don't let geeks too near the system! Perfect is the enemy of comprehensible!
(The votes and the software were made available for examination and running oneself, but that's not IMO as good as a system we can understand. But the system is specified in the ORG constitution, so we're stuck with it. http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/board-election-result )
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 18 September 2012 09:43, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 September 2012 08:50, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
+2
On 18 September 2012 08:43, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers
to
the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box
churns
out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary
be
recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case.
+1. Oh my goodness yes.
Multi-seat STV/ERS97 is just about hand-countable... with the tellers having to edit the ballot paper's values regularly during a transfer of surplus.
So long as we don't suddenly need to elect ten directors at once it should be doable...!
I have a preference for the Schulze method as well, since it is generally superior to many other methods, even if somewhat opaque in its mechanism. Examining the comparisons at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table
should give an indication of its strengths.
The only problem is likely to be finding a good implementation in software. There is a refinement of Schulze described at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV which has a python implementation at https://github.com/bradbeattie/python-vote-core/blob/master/pyvotecore/schul... more interestingly, an online voting service at https://modernballots.com/
Thoughts?
On 17/09/2012 23:50, rexx wrote:
The only problem is likely to be finding a good implementation in software. There is a refinement of Schulze described at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV which has a python implementation at https://github.com/bradbeattie/python-vote-core/blob/master/pyvotecore/schul... but more interestingly, an online voting service at https://modernballots.com/
It's available as part of MediaWiki extension [1] from the 2008 WMF board election onwards, since superseded by [2].
On 17/09/2012 23:40, James Farrar wrote:
I'm very keen that the election method we choose is (in theory) hand-countable (that's one reason why I propose STV-ERS97 rather than a different variant (the other is that I've been counting elections under STV-ERS97 since 1998...)).
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box churns out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be recounted by hand so that there's a backup just in case.
Schulze is hand countable. It just get awfully long very quickly if the the number of voters / candidate increases. This is certainly something that will have to be considered.
KTC
[1]: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:BoardVote [2]: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org