On 12/08/2009 02:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
No, I don't get it either. It seemed like I was one of the only people on the call supporting a single STV round. I made the point (putting on my RALO Chair hat) that the process of going back to the ALSs -- and possibly from the ALSs to their members -- would be overwhelmed by a manual, multi-round vote.
Rank-order voting systems, such as STV/Instant-runoff or Condorcet, must be centrally cumulated and calculated. Precinct counting, in the traditional sense of coming up with a local winner count that is then forwarded to the canvassing center, does not work. Rather with these methods all that can be done in a distributed manner is to record the preferences, and their order, on each ballot and forward those ballot records off to the canvassing center. By-the-way, I certainly do not believe that any choice has been made that ALSs are regional voting centers; that tends to suggest too much that the election is among ALAC members rather than the community of internet users. By-the-way, the year 2000 elections for the public seats on the ICANN board used STV and there was no problem expressed by the voters nor was there any problem with the counting and generation of results. Giving enough time for proper flow of consensus could take weeks per
round
To my mind voting is the (hard and quantitative) antithesis of (soft and non-numeric) "consensus". --karl--