- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:16:39 +0200
- To: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>
- Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 01:12:18 +0200, Nottingham, Mark <mnotting@akamai.com> wrote: > LGTM. Thanks. > The most important thing will be to explain the context here in an > easy-to-digest, concise manner, so that people are motivated to do both. Indeed. cheers > Regards, > > > On 10 Jul 2014, at 6:04 am, Charles McCathie Nevile > <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I have an outstanding action item from the AB to propose a voting >> experiment that could be considered for running as part of elections >> (eg. >> TAG/AB elections). >> >> My strawman proposal: >> >> The purpose of the experiment is to enable W3C Team to gather data on >> whether a different voting system to our current "Multiple >> Non-Transferable Vote" system would change the outcome of elections, and >> in particular, in ways that might make elected groups more broadly >> representative of the voters. >> >> In elections for the AB and TAG, we provide a ballot that offers two >> ways >> to vote. >> >> 1. The current system - you select up to the number of seats available, >> from the candidates running. >> This would be the binding vote - unless we change the process we can't >> change that anyway. >> >> 2. You can rank as few or as many candidates, plus the option "no >> (other) >> candidate". as you want, in preference order. >> >> 1 indicates your most preferred candidate. Giving two or more candidates >> an equal rank is a rational statement, and results should be calculated >> accordingly. >> >> A completed ballot for 3 seats with 6 candidates could be like: >> >> check Candidate name Preference >> up to 3 order >> [ ] Alice [1] >> [X] Byron [2] >> [ ] Charlie [ ] >> [ ] Daniels [3] >> [X] Elliott [4] >> [ ] Franklin [ ] >> No (other) Candidate [5] >> >> (In a real vote, the order of names should be randomised. Not that we do >> that now). >> >> A vote for "No (other) candidate" [0] would be considered a vote for a >> hypothetical alternative instead of a vote being "exhausted" (as happens >> if all the candidates voted for by a single voter have been determined >> as >> elected or not before the completion of counting). A candidate beaten by >> the hypothetical alternative would not be considered elected. >> >> The results of this ranking can be used to asses the results we would >> get >> by using simple "Single Transferable Vote" [1], "Schulze STV" [2]. There >> are several ways to use votes as indicative of likely results from >> "Approval Voting" [3], although they are less reliable than the other >> information we would get from the survey. >> >> In addition we can use the first preference to approximate the results >> we >> would get using "single non-transferable voting" [4] (where each voter >> can >> only vote for one candidate). >> >> I note that if we used preference ranking for other votes, we would also >> be able to look at the effect of systems explicitly designed to rank >> outcomes, such as STV or Schulze STV. However this proposal neither >> requires nor prohibits doing do. >> >> [0] This is related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote >> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV >> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting >> [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Non-Transferable_Vote >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> -- >> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex >> chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham mnot@akamai.com https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 23:17:16 UTC