When a new WG is formed, this discussion should move there. But for now
it remains here on the general list.
One issue about STV (also known as IRV in the US -- instant runoff vote,
which is one way to tabulate such ballots but not the only one) is that
it is designed for single-seat races. Most of the questions about the
recent election had to do with the multiple-seat election and the role
of NotA.
Just one point about IRV: in the San Francisco Bay Area this has been
implemented for a variety of local/municipal elections, but I have great
reservations about the local method because it limits the vote to three
candidates per ballot even if there are more than four candidates
running for the single seat (with four candidates, the one not voted for
becomes an implicit 4th choice). Thus, it potentially disenfranchises
many valid ballot choices (if none of your three chosen candidates ends
up in the final-round head-to-head runoff contest, your vote is
effectively irrelevant -- *even though you showed up to vote and cast a
ballot*). If there is any talk at all of STV, it *must* be implemented
with a full rank-order preference on all candidates running for the
office, or else it undermines the whole purpose of that voting system
(to allow everyone a voice on the final match without being subject to
the split-vote effect ... usually ... ).
To Paul's point about voter confusion with STV, the best way to avoid
that is with a firm UI that prevents misvotes upon input (and explains
errors when necessary -- a learning/teaching tool as well as an
input-cleaning tool), rather than a simple form to be filled out like a
piece of paper where all sorts of things can go wrong. I doubt that
ICANN would provide such a voting system for us -- we'd have to build it
ourselves.
But honestly, I'm not sure if there is a way to design STV tabulation
for multiple-seat races -- never heard of such a thing. Proportional
system is more likely in that case, but that entails a party-based
system and we don't have "parties" in NCSG -- there are only
"independents" in our elections. (I would firmly resist the idea of
making the constituencies into "parties" in this context. Better to
push back against tribalism in our own ranks, rather than systematically
encourage it.)
Range voting is an attractive notion, which also avoids the split vote
problem and some other issues as well (IRV has some potential special
cases that become counterintuitive). It's basically how Olympics are
scored with multiple judges per competition. And I believe it could be
applied easily with voter weights. Not sure about multiple-seat races,
though -- top-N winners?
Would have to think more carefully if it accomplishes the mission of NotA...
Dan
On 9/7/16 10:08 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> I'd be curious Neal for your response to what I understand is the major
> complaint against RRV and SPV methods -- namely that voters often are
> confused by them. Perhaps this electorate is sufficiently attuned that it
> would not suffer that problem ... but am I correct that it can be a problem,
> I think, in other settings.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask]
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neal
> McBurnett
> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 11:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: voting/tabulation process for future elections
>
> I'd also like to be on the list, if it is created.
>
> Joonas, I have made the case for a Proportional Representation (PR) method
> to be used, and STV (a PR method) would be an improvement over the current
> approach, I think. Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) is another worthy option.
>
> Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 12:09:32PM +0300, Joonas Mäkinen wrote:
>> I'd like to join the list too if such is created. Has there already
>> been a reasoning for/against Single Transferable Vote (SVT)? It gives
> great voter satisfaction and discourages tactical voting.
>> maanantai 5. syyskuuta 2016 Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> kirjoitti:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Now is the time to resolve the election issues, while the topic is
> bright in our minds. Let's not put it on the back burner,
>> but instead push through and find the consensus. We've already had
> several suggestions about how to fix the process, let's
>> continue exploring.
>>
>> One suggestion that was made was to have a No vote for each candidate
> in multiple-winner races. There was multiple support for
>> that, but also a suggestion that that was not sufficient even so.
> Let's continue the discussion.
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On 9/5/16 12:32 AM, dorothy g wrote:
>>
>> Congrats to all! and finally we can get to work on fixing our
> election regulations so that we can have peaceful and
>> transparent elections next time around
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joonas "JoonasD6" Mäkinen
>> www.joonasmakinen.com
>>
>> Vice Chairperson (international affairs), Pirate Youth of Finland,
>> www.piraattinuoret.fi Vice Chairperson, Alternative Party,
>> www.altparty.org
>>
>> Faculty of Medicine +
>> Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science
>> University of Helsinki
>>
>> mobile +358 40 700 5190
>> Facebook, Twitter, G+, Skype, IRC, Steam: JoonasD6
|
