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 >