<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wikimedia voting time</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sleepyhead.org/archives/2008/06/02/wikimedia-voting-time/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sleepyhead.org/archives/2008/06/02/wikimedia-voting-time/</link>
	<description>more fun than sleeping!</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bob Richard</title>
		<link>http://sleepyhead.org/archives/2008/06/02/wikimedia-voting-time/#comment-17621</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sleepyhead.org/?p=1378#comment-17621</guid>
		<description>This page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en

says that the election is being conducted using the Schulze method, which is a Condorcet-compliant voting method.  Am I missing something?

Schulze can be a good choice when (1) all voters are sophisticated enough to understand the rationale for how it works (Wikimedia editors, for example), and (2) the community accepts the premise that compromise candidates should win even when they are the first choice of very few voters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This page</p>
<p><a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en" rel="nofollow">http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en</a></p>
<p>says that the election is being conducted using the Schulze method, which is a Condorcet-compliant voting method.  Am I missing something?</p>
<p>Schulze can be a good choice when (1) all voters are sophisticated enough to understand the rationale for how it works (Wikimedia editors, for example), and (2) the community accepts the premise that compromise candidates should win even when they are the first choice of very few voters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clay Shentrup</title>
		<link>http://sleepyhead.org/archives/2008/06/02/wikimedia-voting-time/#comment-17620</link>
		<dc:creator>Clay Shentrup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sleepyhead.org/?p=1378#comment-17620</guid>
		<description>Wikimedia uses Range Voting for their elections?  I thought it was something else.  I know that they've used Condorcet on at least one occasion, which illustrated some flawed aspects of Condorcet.  I definitely think that getting Range Voting enacted in public elections is the #1 most important political reform issue.

http://rangevoting.org/RelImport.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wikimedia uses Range Voting for their elections?  I thought it was something else.  I know that they&#8217;ve used Condorcet on at least one occasion, which illustrated some flawed aspects of Condorcet.  I definitely think that getting Range Voting enacted in public elections is the #1 most important political reform issue.</p>
<p><a href="http://rangevoting.org/RelImport.html" rel="nofollow">http://rangevoting.org/RelImport.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
