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