Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director

I guess I have already said I sent the vote process to board regarding our debate about voting process. best Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:43 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: ALAC Working List; ralph mckay Subject: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director Dear Alan and others: We will have an expert on voting systems and methods on the call, which I'm sure will be valuable for everyone, especially seeing as there seem to be some fundamental misunderstandings about different voting systems under discussion. You will very likely hear that the analysis Alan has given in his 3 point review of how to vote using an preference-based system in his first point is actually not how IRV or STV (or any) preference based voting works. What he is suggesting is tactical voting, which is what one does to pick winners using a first-past-the-post system. Tactical voting is precisely what the mathematics behind preference voting is intended to (and largely does) do away with. Secondly, I would suggest that you all should pick the voting system which you think produces the fairest result, using a system which is itself the most inherently fair and equitable in your understanding, rather than choosing a system simply because other parts of ICANN use it. Thirdly, it seems that there is an idea that the first-past-the-post system produces a winner who is the choice of the majority of voters, and the STV/IRV/Preference based systems do not. This is not actually the case, as you will no doubt hear from the expert. ALL modern and widely-used democratic voting systems produce a winner who is the choice of the majority of voters. They just use different underlying mechanics to produce that result. I have copied Ralph McKay, who is joining us on Monday to provide his expertise on voting methods. Alan Greenberg wrote:

One of the issues that we must address in determining the overall

process governing the selection of the At-Large Board Director is the

adoption of a voting mechanism.

It has been suggested that we use the Instant-Runoff voting as called

for in our Rules of Procedure for other elections. I disagree (in fact

I disagree that we should use it in the other elections, but that is

not the subject of this discussion).

I will present several separate arguments.

First, I believe that the process is difficult for many people to get

their mind around, unless they are VERY used to this process. With an

Instant Runoff ballot, you need to rank the candidates in your order

of preference. That sounds easy, but understanding HOW the votes will

be ranked makes it a lot more difficult. Here is what you need to do:

1. To fill the first ballot position, put in the candidate that you

want to win. That is easy.

2. To fill the second candidate position, assume that the candidate

that you put in above actually comes in dead last - who would you want

to win in that case.

3. To fill the third slot, assume that the after your first candidate

came in dead last and was eliminated, your next choice above also came

in dead last in the next round.

and so forth.

I believe that the above process is very hard for people to actually

think through. It is difficult to select the 2nd and 3rd candidate,

having to accept that the candidate(s) that you REALLY want to win

will come in at the bottom of the poll each time.

Second, if you look at the current Bylaws for the election of the GNSO

and ccNSO Directors, you will find:

GNSO: ... any such selection must have affirmative votes compromising

sixty percent (60%) of all the respective voting House members.

ccNSO: ... any such selection must have affirmative votes of a

majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office.

Aside from the nicety of having a process which is in line with these

two very visible ICANN bodies, I think that it is CRUCIALLY important

that everyone and especially the other Board members know that the

person put on the Board by At-Large was consciously and actively voted

for by at least a majority of those eligible to vote. I do not believe

that an Instant Runoff meets these criteria.

Third, the Instant Runoff voting method is convenient, but to quote

Robert's Rules of Order, one of the authorities on such procedural

matters:

"...especially useful and fair in an election by mail if it is

impractical to take more than one ballot. . . . In such cases it makes

possible a more representative result than that under a rule that a

plurality shall elect. . . . Preferential voting has many variations.

[Instant runoff voting is the example given.] ...Although this type of

preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it

affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting [the exhaustive

ballot system], because it denies voters the opportunity of basing

their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and

because the candidate in last place is automatically eliminated and

may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice."

In the case of the vote for At-Large Director, we are NOT under a

particularly tight time constraint and we could allow for runoff

ballots. Such runoffs not only allow a person to make an enlightened

choice in the sure knowledge that their original choice has been

disqualified, but ensures that the final choice was THE candidate

selected by the majority (or more if we wish) of the voters in the

final round.

=============================

There will be a presentation and discussion of this at our

teleconference -

https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?7_december_2009_community_call_at_l arge_director_appointment_process.

You can find more information on Instant Runoffs at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff. Note that the link within

our Rules of Procedure is incorrect.

Alan

_______________________________________________

At-Large mailing list

At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Senior Director for Participation and Engagement Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac