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