[EM] Why no Condorcet proposals?

[Andrew Myers]

On 1/10/24 5:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 2024-01-10 21:07, Bob Richard [lists] wrote:
>> A Condorcet-compliant method, Nanson, was used in the small city of 
>> Marquette, Michigan in the 1920s. It would be very instructive to 
>> learn why it was repealed. I have never seen anything more than a 
>> passing mention of this episode, so this research would probably 
>> involve traveling to Marquette and rummaging around in newspaper 
>> archives, county election records and the public library. On the 
>> other hand, this part of Michigan is a beautiful place to visit. Any 
>> takers?
>
> In addition, regarding Condorcet methods in actual use, Schulze has 
> been used by a bunch of organizations, and in referenda in a Spanish 
> city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Usage
>
> My impression is that Schulze got its relatively popularity by first 
> being adopted by technology-conscious organizations like Debian and 
> Wikimedia, and then filtering down from there.
>
>
> Nanson has also been used by the University of Adelaide and the 
> University of Melbourne. University elections aren't the same thing as 
> public ones and the circumstances do differ, but perhaps figuring out 
> why they were repealed there would give at least some idea?
>
> (Then again, perhaps not; see my confused surprise at the reasoning 
> the UBC Alma Mater Society gave for abandoning Ranked Pairs.)
>
> -km

The CIVS voting system is routinely used (and has been for years) by a 
variety of organizations to decide leadership questions: especially 
open-source organizations and universities. Randomly grabbing a few 
recent ones:

The Linux Foundation
OpenStack
Bytecode Alliance
Kubeflow
Lubuntu

SUNY Fredonia
College of William and Mary

Of course, it gets used for many other less consequential decisions, 
with more than 35,000 polls run so far.

The default rule CIVS uses is Minimax but it also supports Schulze and 
other methods.

-- Andrew