hi,
So in n=n (candidates = positions) elections, like the one we just had,
no need to vote at all? seems convenient.
BTW: with the idea of moving this discussion off of the NCSG Discussion
list. I find it interesting that we have a discussion here that
motivates some normally silent members to get involved, so now we decide
we need to move that discussion to another list? Curious. And sure
there may be more important things to talk about, and when discussion
starts on them, they would end up on this list as well. Or would we move
them to another new list at that time. Curious.
avri
On 07-Sep-16 14:57, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Okay, I see the STV explanation. It's similar to an IRV process
> (especially in that it iterates tabulation rounds by eliminating one
> candidate at a time) except it stops when you narrow down to the
> number of seats open, so it works for multiple-seat races, and need
> not invoke parties (i.e., its not necessarily "proportional
> representation" per se -- NCSG does not involve proportional
> representation -- all office holders represent the entire SG, not some
> subset of the SG, and I would suggest not changing that).
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 9/7/16 11:40 AM, Neal McBurnett wrote:
>> 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
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
