[Foundation-l] The average voter and voting systems (was Re: Notice of the results of the WMF Board of Trustees election)

[Peter Halasz]

I agree. STV is the best system. I'd dare say that it would be easier
for the electorate to grasp numbering their votes than grasping the
strategy required to vote effectively with the approval system, even
with the suggested improvements.

Pengo.

On 7/13/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > While I think the Single Transferrable Vote is the best voting system, the
> > electorate probably is not sophisticated enough to grasp it, and vote
> > counting on it with the number of seats and candidates we have, would be a
> > positive nightmare, so yes, I am absolutely in agreement with the
> > paragraph above.
>
> It's easier if you make preferences optional (ie, if people don't have
> to number all the way to the end of the list). That can result in more
> exhausted votes than otherwise, but it's a worthwhile tradeoff I
> think.
>
> I don't know if STV is that hard to explain anyway, at least, if you
> give a simplified explanation: first you number all the candidates in
> order of preference (1 being your first preference). If your #1
> preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your #2 preference, and so
> on.
>
> STV works very nicely here in Australia, and it would be a good system
> to use, IMHO.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>