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?
--
Doug
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
>
> [1]: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Schulze_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
> >
>
> --
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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
>