Voting for At-Large Director
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.... 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
Strong agreement with Alan. And apologies I can't join the call to discuss this, I'll be in Washington DC. Adam At 12:46 AM -0500 12/6/09, 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....
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks, Alan, for forwarding the call information to the list. I wonder why the community call was not announced by the Staff. I can only find the following one in October as the latest. Dear All, The At-Large Community call to discuss the At-Large Director Appointment Process has been scheduled for: Thursday 08 October at 1900 UTC. World Clock Link (time zone conversion): http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=08&year=20 09&hour=19&min=00&sec=0&p1=0<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=10&day=08&year=20...> As no language preferences were indicated on the Doodle, this call will be held in English only. Please find the draft agenda as well as the dial-in details on the main At-Large Briefing Sessions page under 08 October 2009, 1900 UTC Community Call: At-Large Director Appointment Process https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?community_call_at_large_director_ap pointment_process If you require a dial-out, please email us at staff@atlarge.icann.org Thank you Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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... .
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...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
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....
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...
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
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
On 12/06/2009 01:42 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
We will have an expert on voting systems and methods on the call
I've had a lot of contact with so-called "experts" on voting (I was a director of the Open Voting Consortium and also a principal in a group that put together an effort for the University of California to develop a reference implementation of a trustable, verifiable voting system for use by California.) Not all voting "experts" are well versed in all aspects of voting. Were I to pick an expert who has a synoptic view would be Douglas Jones of the University of Iowa. For an expert on how one can (or ought not) do network related voting, I'd pick Barbara Simons (who nearly won the year 2000 public election for the ICANN board). And for someone who can come up with ideas about how to mechanize security, David Chaum. Voting a list of preferences, whether counted using STV/IRV, Condorcet, or something else, does work and such systems have been used in both public and private elections. Usually after some initial surprise how to cast votes such systems become comprehensible to voters (how the actual canvasing [counting] occurs may not be so obvious.) In the larger scheme, the choice of system to use for vote casting and canvasing is a tiny matter compared to the question of what kind of seats are up for election, terms of those seats, how the candidates obtain their places on the ballot, and who gets to cast votes. --karl--
Instant Runoff vs Majority vs Convention Style - all of it works. Karl explains very correctly that the main difficulty is to understand actual canvassing (counting). The complete records of all past DNSO votes are still on line here, exactly as I organized it when running DNSO Secretariat, http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/gavotesummary.html You may observe Instant Runoff canvassing (how algorith goes step by step) in all elections for Chair and Vice-Chair, i.e. b04 or b11. Usually it helps a lot. I am from France, the only voting methods here are Majority or Majority-by-lists, I used to several different methods outside of France. My one-sentence-opinion-on-all is: Majority seems easy, but is not convergent; Majority-by-list is deals-before-election; Convention Style is exhausting; I have confidence in Instant Runoff. Kind regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director [...]
Voting a list of preferences, whether counted using STV/IRV, Condorcet, or something else, does work and such systems have been used in both public and private elections. Usually after some initial surprise how to cast votes such systems become comprehensible to voters (how the actual canvasing [counting] occurs may not be so obvious.)
It has been suggested that we use the Instant-Runoff voting as called for in our Rules of Procedure for other elections. ...
First, I believe that the process is difficult for many people to get their mind around, unless they are VERY used to this process.
I lived in Cambridge, Mass., for 15 years, where we used STV to elect both the nine-member city council and the seven-member school committee. We got paper ballots and ranked the candidates from 1 to whatever with a pencil. Then it took a week to find out who won as they did the STV counting process by hand, in three shifts 24/7 until done. Since I left, I gather some MIT guys wrote software to count mark-sense ballots so they can report the result on election night. Even with Cambridge's significant voter turnover from one election to the next, it worked fine. The counting process is indeed arcane, and is even more arcane in multi-candidate elections, but you don't have to understand the counting process to understand how to vote. The point of STV is that it removes the incentive to do strategic voting, in which you vote for a less preferred candidate because you think your favorite candidate has no chance. With STV your best strategy is to rank the candidates in your actual order of preference. You can vote for your favorite no-hope candidate, without risking being disenfranchised since you get a 2nd to Nth chance if he or she is knocked out. R's, John
2009/12/6 John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
It has been suggested that we use the Instant-Runoff voting as called for
in our Rules of Procedure for other elections. ...
First, I believe that the process is difficult for many people to get
their mind around, unless they are VERY used to this process.
Even with Cambridge's significant voter turnover from one election to the next, it worked fine.
I agree with John. The number of people who need to be instructed on the voting method is less than 150, for the ALS representatives plus ALAC (plus some others, such as the EURALO council and NARALO individual members). Given that these people are either representatives of other bodies or themselves interested in ICANN affairs as individuals, I would suggest that this group is probably intelligent enough to understand the process *and* the point behind using an "order of preference" ballot as opposed to a 'first past the post' method.
The point of STV is that it removes the incentive to do strategic voting, in which you vote for a less preferred candidate because you think your favorite candidate has no chance. With STV your best strategy is to rank the candidates in your actual order of preference. You can vote for your favorite no-hope candidate, without risking being disenfranchised since you get a 2nd to Nth chance if he or she is knocked out.
Exactly. - Evan
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:54:33 -0500, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The number of people who need to be instructed on the voting method is less than 150, for the ALS representatives plus ALAC (plus some others, such as the EURALO council and NARALO individual members).
Given that these people are either representatives of other bodies or themselves interested in ICANN affairs as individuals, I would suggest that this group is probably intelligent enough to understand the process *and* the point behind using an "order of preference" ballot as opposed to a 'first past the post' method.
My personal view if that the voting method will depend on the voter base. Whether we have 15, 20 or 150 voters can influence the method we choose. I would personally prefer an election with simple majority, and a second round between the two candidates that had the most votes in the first round if no one gets more than 50% (ie French presidential election system, among others). This is easy to understand and would give, I think, more legitimacy to the elected candidate, knowing he/she is the first choice of more than 50% of the voters, rather than being the second choice of 70%. An "order of preference" seems confusing. It forces one to have a second (and third, etc) choice, when actually you may only wish to make one single choice. You end up indicating second and third choices only because the software forces you to, not because this is actually what you think. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu
I fully agree with you Patrick ! Let's just vote for the first preference. That would really simply the process. Fatimata On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:54:33 -0500, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
The number of people who need to be instructed on the voting method is less than 150, for the ALS representatives plus ALAC (plus some others, such as the EURALO council and NARALO individual members).
Given that these people are either representatives of other bodies or themselves interested in ICANN affairs as individuals, I would suggest that this group is probably intelligent enough to understand the process *and* the point behind using an "order of preference" ballot as opposed to a 'first past the post' method.
My personal view if that the voting method will depend on the voter base. Whether we have 15, 20 or 150 voters can influence the method we choose.
I would personally prefer an election with simple majority, and a second round between the two candidates that had the most votes in the first round if no one gets more than 50% (ie French presidential election system, among others). This is easy to understand and would give, I think, more legitimacy to the elected candidate, knowing he/she is the first choice of more than 50% of the voters, rather than being the second choice of 70%.
An "order of preference" seems confusing. It forces one to have a second (and third, etc) choice, when actually you may only wish to make one single choice. You end up indicating second and third choices only because the software forces you to, not because this is actually what you think.
Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
My apologies for not monitoring the list lately. This caught my attention though. Can someone please email me who is running, how and where to vote, etc. I know you have already done this on the list most likely, but I missed it. Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 http://www.articlecontentprovider.com http://www.blogcontentprovider.com http://www.seoserviceprovider.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "vanda" <vanda@uol.com.br> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <rbeca@imaginaccion.cl>; <subrenat@icann.org>; <tricia.drakes@parvil.demon.co.uk> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Vanda: Please check your sent emails, because are arriving empty, and is not the first time. thank`s Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:15:17 -0200 From: vanda@uol.com.br To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; rbeca@imaginaccion.cl; subrenat@icann.org; tricia.drakes@parvil.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger GRATIS: lo que faltaba en tu BlackBerry http://www.messengerentublackberry.com?ocid=WL_BB_LandPage_TagLine
I had a problem with my netbook again ( the windows was not well installed when it was at maintenance just before Seoul. These last 4 days I have used another PC and send/received emails just by web. Some other firens also complained about this. Jorge reinstalled it to me and we checked all functionalities and now looks all right Thanks Abrazo Vanda -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of carlos aguirre Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:27 PM To: At-Large Worldwide; rbeca@imaginaccion.cl; subrenat@icann.org; tricia.drakes@parvil.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director Dear Vanda: Please check your sent emails, because are arriving empty, and is not the first time. thank`s Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:15:17 -0200 From: vanda@uol.com.br To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; rbeca@imaginaccion.cl; subrenat@icann.org; tricia.drakes@parvil.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director
_______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger GRATIS: lo que faltaba en tu BlackBerry http://www.messengerentublackberry.com?ocid=WL_BB_LandPage_TagLine _______________________________________________ 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
Exactly my point. Alan At 07/12/2009 02:15 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
An "order of preference" seems confusing. It forces one to have a second (and third, etc) choice, when actually you may only wish to make one single choice. You end up indicating second and third choices only because the software forces you to, not because this is actually what you think.
Patrick
In case it is not clear, it is possible to set an STV or other preference-style vote to require the voter to select a preference for all candidates, or some candidates, or indeed only one candidate. However, this does affect the way the system handles your vote if your first choice is the minority choice of the other participants, and is eliminated in the first or subsequent rounds of vote tabulation, though I believe that Ralph is addressing this in his comments back to the community. Alan Greenberg wrote:
Exactly my point. Alan
At 07/12/2009 02:15 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
An "order of preference" seems confusing. It forces one to have a second (and third, etc) choice, when actually you may only wish to make one single choice. You end up indicating second and third choices only because the software forces you to, not because this is actually what you think.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 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
On 12/06/2009 11:15 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:54:33 -0500, Evan Leibovitch<evan@telly.org> wrote:
The number of people who need to be instructed on the voting method is less than 150, for the ALS representatives plus ALAC (plus some others, such as the EURALO council and NARALO individual members).
That strikes me as a rather restrictive enumeration of the electorate for a public director seat. Remember, the election is *not* an ALAC election; it is an election by the community of internet users. The election must not be structured so that membership in the ALAC, is required for people to participate. --karl--
I would personally prefer an election with simple majority, and a second round between the two candidates that had the most votes in the first round if no one gets more than 50% (ie French presidential election system, among others). This is easy to understand and would give, I think, more legitimacy to the elected candidate, knowing he/she is the first choice of more than 50% of the voters, rather than being the second choice of 70%.
This objection makes no sense to me. If your first choice candidate isn't in the the runoff, you can't vote for him or her, so you vote for whichever of the remaining candidates you like the best, which, in a reasonable world, would be whichever of them would have ranked higher on your STV ballot. In effect, it's just a slower and less fair way to do the same thing. Note that in STV, if one candidate gets 50% of the votes, the election is over, and the transferrals only happen so long as nobody has a majority. If as people seem to be saying, our electorate is so innumerate that they cannot ask themselves "who would I vote for if my preferred candidate weren't running?" then I guess we should do something else. But it is a sad commentary on the voters. R's, John
I would like to understand better the objection to instant run-offs. What is the scenario in which the instant run-off produces a "less desirable" candidate than an alternative method? Bret
2009/12/7 John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote If your first choice candidate isn't in the the runoff, you can't vote for
him or her, so you vote for whichever of the remaining candidates you like the best, which, in a reasonable world, would be whichever of them would have ranked higher on your STV ballot. In effect, it's just a slower and less fair way to do the same thing. Note that in STV, if one candidate gets 50% of the votes, the election is over, and the transferrals only happen so long as nobody has a majority.
If as people seem to be saying, our electorate is so innumerate that they cannot ask themselves "who would I vote for if my preferred candidate weren't running?" then I guess we should do something else. But it is a sad commentary on the voters.
In a conference call held to try to explain the issue yesterday (3am on the US east coast) there was a commonly expressed concern that public confidence in the election system was critical, along with a concern that an ordered vote would be hard to explain and thus would not instill said required level of confidence. It's as if each and every voter needs to know the insides of the vote-counting software and algorythms in order to have confidence, and that anything more complex than first-part-the-post will open us to accusations of opacity. No, I don't get it either. It seemed like I was one of the only people on the call supporting a single STV round. I made the point (putting on my RALO Chair hat) that the process of going back to the ALSs -- and possibly from the ALSs to their members -- would be overwhelmed by a manual, multi-round vote. Giving enough time for proper flow of consensus could take weeks per round. I'll leave it to the others who were on the call to defend a multi-round, FPTP scheme, because I certainly can't. Then there were those who, in the name of expediency, promoted "freeing" the voting reps to vote to their personal preferences (rather than be directed by RALO consensus) in order to make multiple rounds go faster. And all this to defend first-past-the-post. Then there was the oft-repeated mantra that "the first vote is from the heart, the second vote is from the head". I guess I'm not sophisticated enough to see why every vote shouldn't also be done with the consent of the small intestine and adrenal gland. Towards the end of the call, the compromise(d) wisdom seemed to coalecse around a "hybrid" approach. While details of the hybrid were evasive, the discussion suggested a first round based on an ordered vote to narrow a large field down to two or three, then one or two FPTP rounds would determine the 50%+1 winner. I find this approach to be condescending to (and distrusful of) the ALSs and ICANN individual At-Large members, but there seemed to be few else involved in the discussion who agreed with me. If pressed I can accept the hybrid voting process as vaguely suggested above, but I still think it's needlessly wasteful of time and resources. - Evan
On 12/08/2009 02:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
No, I don't get it either. It seemed like I was one of the only people on the call supporting a single STV round. I made the point (putting on my RALO Chair hat) that the process of going back to the ALSs -- and possibly from the ALSs to their members -- would be overwhelmed by a manual, multi-round vote.
Rank-order voting systems, such as STV/Instant-runoff or Condorcet, must be centrally cumulated and calculated. Precinct counting, in the traditional sense of coming up with a local winner count that is then forwarded to the canvassing center, does not work. Rather with these methods all that can be done in a distributed manner is to record the preferences, and their order, on each ballot and forward those ballot records off to the canvassing center. By-the-way, I certainly do not believe that any choice has been made that ALSs are regional voting centers; that tends to suggest too much that the election is among ALAC members rather than the community of internet users. By-the-way, the year 2000 elections for the public seats on the ICANN board used STV and there was no problem expressed by the voters nor was there any problem with the counting and generation of results. Giving enough time for proper flow of consensus could take weeks per
round
To my mind voting is the (hard and quantitative) antithesis of (soft and non-numeric) "consensus". --karl--
2009/12/8 Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
Rank-order voting systems, such as STV/Instant-runoff or Condorcet, must be centrally cumulated and calculated. Precinct counting, in the traditional sense of coming up with a local winner count that is then forwarded to the canvassing center, does not work. Rather with these methods all that can be done in a distributed manner is to record the preferences, and their order, on each ballot and forward those ballot records off to the canvassing center.
Based on what we've been told it can work here. The levels of automation possible certainly do allow for regional elections whose results are carried into the global vote. Indeed a third level of indirection exists in NARALO, where vote is held amongst individuals who are not affiliated with ALSs.
By-the-way, I certainly do not believe that any choice has been made that ALSs are regional voting centers; that tends to suggest too much that the election is among ALAC members rather than the community of internet users.
You are welcome to your beliefs but I don't think they match the current reality. A decisive majority within At-Large(*) has expressed a preference for the 20-vote option in which most -- but not all -- the voters are ALAC members. According the the whole purpose of At-Large, we are charged with doing our best to support and advance the interests of the "community of Internet users", so your point is moot. And I personally have little interest in (yet again) re-debating the suitability of At-Large for this task. - Evan (*) - Actually, every region except NARALO has expressed this preference. Within NARALO, a preponderance of participants also prefer this option; however there are enough individuals opposed that I am reluctant to call the majority view a consensus. Just the same, even of you count NARALO as split, then 4.5 out of 5 regions have expressed a clear preference for the 20 vote option (option 3 in the list at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?At-Large%20Draft%20Procedure%2... )
On 12/09/2009 09:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
2009/12/8 Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com>
Rank-order voting systems, such as STV/Instant-runoff or Condorcet, must be centrally cumulated and calculated. Precinct counting, in the traditional sense of coming up with a local winner count that is then forwarded to the canvassing center, does not work. Rather with these methods all that can be done in a distributed manner is to record the preferences, and their order, on each ballot and forward those ballot records off to the canvassing center.
Based on what we've been told it can work here.
I don't know who told you that but it is incorrect. There is no way when using STV/instant-runoff to do a local count, come up with a local winner, and then aggregate those local winners. The levels of automation... No amount of automation makes it possible - it is simply a mathematical fact that the sequence of preferences on each separate ballot needs to be communicated to the central canvassing center so that the rounds of STV/instant-runoff counting can occur.
By-the-way, I certainly do not believe that any choice has been made that ALSs are regional voting centers; that tends to suggest too much that the election is among ALAC members rather than the community of internet users.
You are welcome to your beliefs but I don't think they match the current reality. A decisive majority within At-Large(*) has expressed a preference for the 20-vote option in which most -- but not all -- the voters are ALAC members.
You cite the ALAC as the community of internet users for whom the board seat is being created. This board seat is neither an ALAC nor a *RALO nor an ALS seat; it a seat for the entire community of internet users to fill. Any solution must allow any group of users, whether affiliated with an ALAC/RALO body or not, to nominate, with full equality, candidates onto the ballot and to cast votes. ICANN has a list of over 200,000 names of people who requested to be voters and had their identities successfully authenticated for the year 2000 election. Many are still out there. Are we going to disenfranchise them? We have already seen that open nominations, of any person by any group of persons, can and has worked for elections for the ICANN board. Why fear what has already been done and that has already worked? The ALAC was asked to come up with a proposal; it was hoped that that proposal would be broad minded and inclusive of the entire community of internet users. If the ALAC comes up with a narrow proposal that is little more than a selection of ALAC insiders by ALAC insiders then that proposal ought, and must, be discarded.
According the the whole purpose of At-Large, we are charged with doing our best to support and advance the interests of the "community of Internet users", so your point is moot.
The argument that you are making is that you, or rather the ALAC, knows more about what are the interests and desires of internet users than those users themselves. That kind of paternalism brings to mind King Leopold of Belgium and Queen Victoria of England as they ruled over their 19th century African and Indian colonies with claims that these monarchs were acting, to borrow your words, "to support and advance the interests" of the people who lived there. Those people did not have much opportunity to disagree until the mid 20th century, at which time their cumulative disagreement had catastrophic results. Do we really want the public seat on ICANN's Board of Directors to be chosen via a process riddled with condescension? And I personally have little interest in (yet
again) re-debating the suitability of At-Large for this task.
One might sense that there is an unspoken reason why the nomination and voting is so restricted is that there is a fear by some that the community of internet users might chose its own way rather than the course laid out for it by the ALAC and its component bodies. --karl--
Dear Karl: I've copied in our local voting expert who can tell you more about the subject of vote tabulation in an STV-based system which is online and not manual. Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 12/09/2009 09:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
2009/12/8 Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com>
Rank-order voting systems, such as STV/Instant-runoff or Condorcet, must be centrally cumulated and calculated. Precinct counting, in the traditional sense of coming up with a local winner count that is then forwarded to the canvassing center, does not work. Rather with these methods all that can be done in a distributed manner is to record the preferences, and their order, on each ballot and forward those ballot records off to the canvassing center.
Based on what we've been told it can work here.
I don't know who told you that but it is incorrect. There is no way when using STV/instant-runoff to do a local count, come up with a local winner, and then aggregate those local winners.
The levels of automation...
No amount of automation makes it possible - it is simply a mathematical fact that the sequence of preferences on each separate ballot needs to be communicated to the central canvassing center so that the rounds of STV/instant-runoff counting can occur.
By-the-way, I certainly do not believe that any choice has been made that ALSs are regional voting centers; that tends to suggest too much that the election is among ALAC members rather than the community of internet users.
You are welcome to your beliefs but I don't think they match the current reality. A decisive majority within At-Large(*) has expressed a preference for the 20-vote option in which most -- but not all -- the voters are ALAC members.
You cite the ALAC as the community of internet users for whom the board seat is being created. This board seat is neither an ALAC nor a *RALO nor an ALS seat; it a seat for the entire community of internet users to fill.
Any solution must allow any group of users, whether affiliated with an ALAC/RALO body or not, to nominate, with full equality, candidates onto the ballot and to cast votes.
ICANN has a list of over 200,000 names of people who requested to be voters and had their identities successfully authenticated for the year 2000 election. Many are still out there. Are we going to disenfranchise them?
We have already seen that open nominations, of any person by any group of persons, can and has worked for elections for the ICANN board. Why fear what has already been done and that has already worked?
The ALAC was asked to come up with a proposal; it was hoped that that proposal would be broad minded and inclusive of the entire community of internet users. If the ALAC comes up with a narrow proposal that is little more than a selection of ALAC insiders by ALAC insiders then that proposal ought, and must, be discarded.
According the the whole purpose of At-Large, we are charged with doing our best to support and advance the interests of the "community of Internet users", so your point is moot.
The argument that you are making is that you, or rather the ALAC, knows more about what are the interests and desires of internet users than those users themselves.
That kind of paternalism brings to mind King Leopold of Belgium and Queen Victoria of England as they ruled over their 19th century African and Indian colonies with claims that these monarchs were acting, to borrow your words, "to support and advance the interests" of the people who lived there. Those people did not have much opportunity to disagree until the mid 20th century, at which time their cumulative disagreement had catastrophic results.
Do we really want the public seat on ICANN's Board of Directors to be chosen via a process riddled with condescension?
And I personally have little interest in (yet
again) re-debating the suitability of At-Large for this task.
One might sense that there is an unspoken reason why the nomination and voting is so restricted is that there is a fear by some that the community of internet users might chose its own way rather than the course laid out for it by the ALAC and its component bodies.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
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
On 12/10/2009 12:36 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I've copied in our local voting expert who can tell you more about the subject of vote tabulation in an STV-based system which is online and not manual.
I'm not talking about "manual" as in the case of people using their hands to count things. Rather, I'm talking about the fact that in STV the canvassing/counting system, whether it is performed by people or machine, requires that the input be the full set of the sequence of choices on the full set of ballots that were cast. In classical majority voting counting could occur at the precinct level and the tallies posted on the wall and the sums, and only the sums, need be forwarded to the central canvassing center. But with STV one can't run a local STV iterative calculation to completion, post a precinct winner, and then forward the simple sums to the canvassing center. Rather the best that can happen at the precinct level is to capture the ordered selections on each ballot into portable form. It is only at the central counting facility that with each iteration of the STV count can the lowest candidate of that iteration be removed and the choices of those ballots with that candidate as the current highest preference be refined to make the next choice the highest preference. In our context this means that all the ballots (or their electronic equivalents) must be sent to Marina del Rey where the STV iteration can occur. --karl--
Dear Karl: There is no need for ballots to be forwarded to MdR or any other physical location; we have an online voting system which handles all voting automatically, publishes independently-verifiable results, and is widely used worldwide by institutions of all shapes and sizes. Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 12/10/2009 12:36 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I've copied in our local voting expert who can tell you more about the subject of vote tabulation in an STV-based system which is online and not manual.
I'm not talking about "manual" as in the case of people using their hands to count things.
Rather, I'm talking about the fact that in STV the canvassing/counting system, whether it is performed by people or machine, requires that the input be the full set of the sequence of choices on the full set of ballots that were cast.
In classical majority voting counting could occur at the precinct level and the tallies posted on the wall and the sums, and only the sums, need be forwarded to the central canvassing center.
But with STV one can't run a local STV iterative calculation to completion, post a precinct winner, and then forward the simple sums to the canvassing center. Rather the best that can happen at the precinct level is to capture the ordered selections on each ballot into portable form. It is only at the central counting facility that with each iteration of the STV count can the lowest candidate of that iteration be removed and the choices of those ballots with that candidate as the current highest preference be refined to make the next choice the highest preference.
In our context this means that all the ballots (or their electronic equivalents) must be sent to Marina del Rey where the STV iteration can occur.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
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
On 12/10/2009 02:59 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
There is no need for ballots to be forwarded to MdR or any other physical location; we have an online voting system which handles all voting automatically, publishes independently-verifiable results, and is widely used worldwide by institutions of all shapes and sizes.
Having been on the insides (literally) of Diebold and other voting systems I find that the argument that a system has been widely used tends not to be particularly persuasive. ;-) With STV the physical ballots need not be forwarded but the data on those ballots does need to be forwarded else processed using a distributed iterative calculation similar to what I described a few minutes ago needs to be used. I don't know who is that unnamed "expert" you are working with. I'd certainly like to know what criteria he/she is using - for example, in political elections it is a first order concern to prevent anyone, and I mean anyone, from being able to link a vote to a voter. In corporate/shareholder style voting systems, which I suspect is what you are using, that concern is of a secondary order and such linkages often can be made by those who operate the system - thus such systems require trusted operators coupled with procedural barriers. Is the election we are talking about to be held to the same standards of anonymity as a typical political election, or are we using the lower standards of commercial voting? Do we want verification by voters or are we willing to trust that the systems and machinery are not altering the voter's intent? I'm not speaking hypothetically - I spent a couple of years designing open source verifiable voting systems as well as a reference system to be used by the state of California. Trustworthy verifiable secure registration, voting, and canvassing systems are really, really hard. STV/instant-run-off counting is but one aspect of that difficulty. Nevertheless STV is a counting method that makes regional or precinct partial results a meaningless notion except to the degree that one might locally publish, in randomized sequence, the preference-choices of every ballot cast in that precinct/region. We had on the order of 200,000 votes cast in the ICANN election of year 2000. One of the issues about that election was that in some regions there were reports of voter coercion, in particular that voters were coerced to vote in accord with national or corporate directives. In order to prevent that kind of thing in political elections many jurisdictions prohibit the voter retaining any official record of what vote he/she cast and at the same time requiring that the votes be cast in place where the voter is guaranteed to be alone and in private. Given that my seat on the ICANN board was erased partially on the grounds that "ICANN elections were tainted by coercion" it seems to me that future elections should deal with this issue. --karl--
More on distributed STV counting: There *is* an algorithm for STV counting that does not require that every ballot be sent to the central canvassing site, but it still does not produce local/precinct/regional results: The algorithm requires that for each iteration of counting each precinct/region send the sum of highest-preferred candidates who have not yet been excluded. The central site then aggregates the counts, tosses the loser and then sends the revised list of remaining candidates out to the precincts/regions. They then fully recount their ballots taking into account the revised list of remaining candidates and send the revised sums to the canvassing center. And round-and-round it goes until there's a winner. As you can imagine, with that kind of some-here-some-there counting it is easy to make mistakes, there can be considerable delays, and recounting and auditing are made quite difficult. --karl--
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
2009/12/8 Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
By-the-way, I certainly do not believe that any choice has been made that ALSs are regional voting centers; that tends to suggest too much that the election is among ALAC members rather than the community of internet users.
You are welcome to your beliefs but I don't think they match the current reality. A decisive majority within At-Large(*) has expressed a preference for the 20-vote option in which most -- but not all -- the voters are ALAC members.
According the the whole purpose of At-Large, we are charged with doing our best to support and advance the interests of the "community of Internet users", so your point is moot. And I personally have little interest in (yet again) re-debating the suitability of At-Large for this task.
- Evan
(*) - Actually, every region except NARALO has expressed this preference. Within NARALO, a preponderance of participants also prefer this option; however there are enough individuals opposed that I am reluctant to call the majority view a consensus. Just the same, even of you count NARALO as split, then 4.5 out of 5 regions have expressed a clear preference for the 20 vote option (option 3 in the list at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?At-Large%20Draft%20Procedure%2... )
It's probably no coincidence that the alternate viewpoint comes from NARALO, the only Regional At-Large Organization to allow individual members. Some of those individuals, and perhaps others who've worked with us, believe strongly that the electorate should be broader than the ALAC or RALO and ALS leaders. ALAC may need to serve as a coordinating body, but it does not effectively represent individuals. I find it hard to imagine that the other regions' unanimity comes from a discussion involving many Internet end-users. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
ALAC may need to serve as a coordinating body, but it does not effectively represent individuals. I find it hard to imagine that the other regions' unanimity comes from a discussion involving many Internet end-users.
I'd guess that many Internet end-users will see as a very positive sign if we stop playing the musical chairs game and we take this opportunity to get a real *independent* director that is not an ICANN insider or ex-chair of this, or liaison of that, etc. For sure, an insider will know ICANN's guts and operate better, but I think we have/had enough "operators". BTW, I find hard to believe that all ALSs are actual representatives of a vast majority of "Internet end-users". My .02 Jorge
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW, I find hard to believe that all ALSs are actual representatives of a vast majority of "Internet end-users".
Your correct. Existing ALSs only represent power centers within ICANN and not much more. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org
On 7 Dec 2009, at 04:17, John R. Levine wrote:
It has been suggested that we use the Instant-Runoff voting as called for in our Rules of Procedure for other elections. ...
First, I believe that the process is difficult for many people to get their mind around, unless they are VERY used to this process.
I lived in Cambridge, Mass., for 15 years, where we used STV to elect both the nine-member city council and the seven-member school committee. We got paper ballots and ranked the candidates from 1 to whatever with a pencil. Then it took a week to find out who won as they did the STV counting process by hand, in three shifts 24/7 until done. Since I left, I gather some MIT guys wrote software to count mark-sense ballots so they can report the result on election night.
Even with Cambridge's significant voter turnover from one election to the next, it worked fine.
The counting process is indeed arcane, and is even more arcane in multi-candidate elections, but you don't have to understand the counting process to understand how to vote. The point of STV is that it removes the incentive to do strategic voting, in which you vote for a less preferred candidate because you think your favorite candidate has no chance. With STV your best strategy is to rank the candidates in your actual order of preference. You can vote for your favorite no-hope candidate, without risking being disenfranchised since you get a 2nd to Nth chance if he or she is knocked out.
R's, John
STV works a lot better than "first past the post" It means you're more likely to end up with a truly representative candidate getting elected John's explanation says it all, so I won't waste people's time adding to it Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
FWIY, I share the fundamental concerns outlined here by Alan. I have already outlined on this or other public list my own perceptions of what is important in deciding the At-Large Board seat; it begins with a thorough understanding of the role of the Board and the way Boards work in practice, followed by defining criteria fit to purpose of selecting candidates who are themselves fit for purpose. From my working experience, it is highly desirable that all other things being equal, a Board member must have the wherewithal and room to shape decisions, even if your principal position is itself untenable or does not enjoy majority support. I know from experience that we have a fairly sizeable contingent of likely voters who tend to a more visceral decision-making routine; this is the stuff of the "heart" that was so ably encapsulated in argument this morning by Christopher Wilkinson. While I do not wish a "gamed" system, Tricia Drake's very sensible proposal for a hybrid voting system has some appeal for me because it gives us an opportunity to embrace the votes of the "heart" as well as those of the "head". And it also advances the idea I particularly share with Alan; the presumption that the vote is fair. I am also cheered that the Bigpulse expert thinks implementing a hybrid mechanism that addresses the issues I see is doable and in the short term. Carlton ================================================================================= On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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... .
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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (21)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Bret Fausett -
carlos aguirre -
Carlton Samuels -
Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 -
Elisabeth Porteneuve -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Hong Xue -
Joe Baptista -
John R. Levine -
Jorge Amodio -
Karl Auerbach -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Ralph McKay -
vanda -
Vanda UOL
-
Wendy Seltzer