On the matter of STV's (and variations thereof)... and the question of if
ICANN would/could provide a system to use => should the decision go in such
a way (and as an Aussie I am totally comfortable with these systems as it
is what we use here) please note that the ALAC / At-Large Community, has,
since 2007 used a variety of voting and ballot options for different
purposes including STV variants and ICANN has provided us with an account
and access with the *very flexible and transparant* third party 'Big Pulse'
proprietary online system (which also does nice public opinion polling as
well BTW) so ICANN has an account with the providor and I see no reason
why NCSG could not utalise that if it wished... Perhaps a call with our
account managers at this company (Heidi Ulrich could provide details here)
would also help us understand some options and opportunities... I know
this has benefited the ALAC / At-Large in the past when we have reviewed
processes for our polling and voting from time to time...
On 8 Sep 2016 5:59 AM, "avri doria" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>
|
