Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
My personal preference is option 1 for the following reasons: - I prefer verifiable processes and thus eliminate option 4. - I prefer to give the electorate a second chance before resorting to a random selection and so eliminate option 3. - I believe that voters should always be encouraged to vote for the candidate they actually would like to win (in the eventuality that their best preference does not win) and thus I eliminate option 2. I am sure there are other opinions, and I look forward to hearing the reasoning behind them. Alan At 10/06/2016 05:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent a few days ago, there are several options to one of the voting stages in the selection of the At-Large Director. The RoP revision group did not reach unanimity on which option to pick (largely because of the deadline required to sent the revision to the ALAC to allow us to approve the revisions in Helsinki).
The options have to do with the reduction of three candidates to two. In the optimal case, one of the three candidates will have fewer votes (or first preference votes) and will be dropped, resulting in two candidates being left. The difficulty arises if the two candidates tie for last place, but with the leading candidate not receiving an absolute majority of votes needed to be declared the final winner.
Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, with the hope that some positions may have changed. This would be done just once. If the second vote results in a tie for the last position (even if it is not the same pair as the first time), one of those tied is eliminated based on a verifiable random selection. The down side of this method is that no one may alter their vote and we would have to use a random selection.
Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two tied candidates. If the results between the two is tied, a verifiable random selection would be used to eliminate one of them. The down side of this option is something called "strategic voting". Those electors who originally voted for the leading candidate (the one not in this runoff) may not vote for the person they prefer, but could vote for the one they perceive as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate.
Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the two tied candidates will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection.
Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be used in the first round (to narrow the slate down to three). The BigPulse STV system will always eliminate one candidate, but if it must resort to a random selection, it would be internal to the voting system and would not be verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to have used a truly random selection.
Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which option to use, it would be good to begin the discussion now and not wait for Helsinki.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
My vote is for #1- give everyone a second go at the vote, but to consider the results of the last vote and what might give the best result in this new round. On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
My personal preference is option 1 for the following reasons:
- I prefer verifiable processes and thus eliminate option 4.
- I prefer to give the electorate a second chance before resorting to a random selection and so eliminate option 3.
- I believe that voters should always be encouraged to vote for the candidate they actually would like to win (in the eventuality that their best preference does not win) and thus I eliminate option 2.
I am sure there are other opinions, and I look forward to hearing the reasoning behind them.
Alan
At 10/06/2016 05:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent a few days ago, there are several options to one of the voting stages in the selection of the At-Large Director. The RoP revision group did not reach unanimity on which option to pick (largely because of the deadline required to sent the revision to the ALAC to allow us to approve the revisions in Helsinki).
The options have to do with the reduction of three candidates to two. In the optimal case, one of the three candidates will have fewer votes (or first preference votes) and will be dropped, resulting in two candidates being left. The difficulty arises if the two candidates tie for last place, but with the leading candidate not receiving an absolute majority of votes needed to be declared the final winner.
Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, with the hope that some positions may have changed. This would be done just once. If the second vote results in a tie for the last position (even if it is not the same pair as the first time), one of those tied is eliminated based on a verifiable random selection. The down side of this method is that no one may alter their vote and we would have to use a random selection.
Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two tied candidates. If the results between the two is tied, a verifiable random selection would be used to eliminate one of them. The down side of this option is something called "strategic voting". Those electors who originally voted for the leading candidate (the one not in this runoff) may not vote for the person they prefer, but could vote for the one they perceive as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate.
Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the two tied candidates will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection.
Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be used in the first round (to narrow the slate down to three). The BigPulse STV system will always eliminate one candidate, but if it must resort to a random selection, it would be internal to the voting system and would not be verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to have used a truly random selection.
Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which option to use, it would be good to begin the discussion now and not wait for Helsinki.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Folks I partly agree with Maureen. I agree with eliminating Option 4 for the same reason - lack of verifiable processes. I also would eliminate Option 3 for the same reason - giving the electorate a second chance. My first choice is Option 2 - it still allows verifiable choice, but because the number of candidates is changed, the likelihood is for a winner being selected. My second choice if Option 1 - again because the process is verifiable and gives the electorate a second chance Holly On 11 Jun 2016, at 10:08 am, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
My vote is for #1- give everyone a second go at the vote, but to consider the results of the last vote and what might give the best result in this new round.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: My personal preference is option 1 for the following reasons:
- I prefer verifiable processes and thus eliminate option 4.
- I prefer to give the electorate a second chance before resorting to a random selection and so eliminate option 3.
- I believe that voters should always be encouraged to vote for the candidate they actually would like to win (in the eventuality that their best preference does not win) and thus I eliminate option 2.
I am sure there are other opinions, and I look forward to hearing the reasoning behind them.
Alan
At 10/06/2016 05:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent a few days ago, there are several options to one of the voting stages in the selection of the At-Large Director. The RoP revision group did not reach unanimity on which option to pick (largely because of the deadline required to sent the revision to the ALAC to allow us to approve the revisions in Helsinki).
The options have to do with the reduction of three candidates to two. In the optimal case, one of the three candidates will have fewer votes (or first preference votes) and will be dropped, resulting in two candidates being left. The difficulty arises if the two candidates tie for last place, but with the leading candidate not receiving an absolute majority of votes needed to be declared the final winner.
Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, with the hope that some positions may have changed. This would be done just once. If the second vote results in a tie for the last position (even if it is not the same pair as the first time), one of those tied is eliminated based on a verifiable random selection. The down side of this method is that no one may alter their vote and we would have to use a random selection.
Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two tied candidates. If the results between the two is tied, a verifiable random selection would be used to eliminate one of them. The down side of this option is something called "strategic voting". Those electors who originally voted for the leading candidate (the one not in this runoff) may not vote for the person they prefer, but could vote for the one they perceive as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate.
Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the two tied candidates will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection.
Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be used in the first round (to narrow the slate down to three). The BigPulse STV system will always eliminate one candidate, but if it must resort to a random selection, it would be internal to the voting system and would not be verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to have used a truly random selection.
Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which option to use, it would be good to begin the discussion now and not wait for Helsinki.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Holly Raiche -
Maureen Hilyard