Re: "Removed statement there is one vote per available seat" - was Re: W3C Process 2018

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:35 AM, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote:

> I believe we have made voting far too complicated --- I dont believe
> the 75% of the silent membership that never participates on these
> lists or (sadly in most elections) is in any way likely to understand
> these nuances.
>
> I beleive we'd make a far larger impact by going back to a simple
> voting system, and instead spend the energy on increased participation.
>

+++1


>
> Florian Rivoal writes:
>  >
>  > > On Sep 29, 2017, at 7:34, Michael Champion <
> michaelc.champion@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Since only the Team has access to the raw vote data, this discrepancy
> wasn’t noticed until recently.
>  >
>  > Good catch. I certainly wasn't aware of the discrepancy.
>  >
>  > > Does it matter?  Definitely, the results can be different.   There is
> a GitHub discussion of this issue in which I go through a hypothetical
> example  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60#issuecomment-323474691
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60#issuecomment-323474691> to
> illustrate how the different approaches work.  The  currently implemented
> STV system would make it easier to elect TAG and AB members ranked #1 by a
> substantial minority of the AC, the one-vote-per-available-seat STV system
> would tend to elect people broadly ranked in the top few spots.
>  >
>  > Reasoning about voting systems is hard.
>  >
>  > One thing I wonder is which one is more supportive of diverse
> candidates. Diverse candidates may be people most voters don't know except
> for a small number of fans, but they could also be people who don't quite
> have the name recognition of the superstars, but still have a large number
> of voters who are familiar and confortable with them even if they don't get
> first spot on many people's list.
>  >
>  > I guess it might depend on whether "increase diversity" means "elect
> candidates from all sorts of places, not just Goozillapplosoft" or means
> "elect candidates with a broad range of viewpoints, including radical and
> polarizing ones". It's not obvious too me how much overlap there is between
> the two understandings, and what the exact effects of the two voting
> methods are, especially once you take strategic voting into account.
>  >
>  > It would be interesting to see if the results on the live data of the
> past elections for which we have data, even though this isn't perfect, as
> voting strategies for either system could be different.
>  >
>  > —Florian
> --
>
> --
>
>