STV (Single transferable vote) is designed for proportional representation, and is not the same as IRV.
But, indeed, both of them use ranked-choice ballots, and I'm sorry to say that there is much confusion in terminology around the many methods that use ranked-choice ballots.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

I agree that good ballot design and a well designed user interface for voting is critical when using any voting system. Unfortunately that it is hard, and ICANN may well not offer a good option there.

I also agree that limiting the number of allowed rankings (done to simplify a paper ballot design) is not a good idea, and defeats some of the properties that ranked-choice methods offer.

These are some of the reasons I brought up Reweighted Range Voting, which is easier to implement and perhaps simpler to explain.

  http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html

But again, there are a number of hurdles, including the need to amend the charter, which itself requires more participation that we've gotten in recent elections.

Neal McBurnett                 http://neal.mcburnett.org/

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:20:56AM -0700, Dan Krimm wrote:
> 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