- From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:17:08 +0000
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
Hi all, I have tried to capture the explanation and clarification of this experiment here https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/STV_experiment Please complete... Regards, Virginie -----Original Message----- From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] Sent: mardi 22 juillet 2014 08:24 To: Nottingham, Mark; Jeff Jaffe Cc: public-w3process@w3.org Subject: Re: Voting experiment On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:18:30 +0200, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > > On 7/9/2014 7:16 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: >> 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. > > Before we take this to the AB for approval, it would be good to know > who will create this explanation. It probably should be someone with > a deep understanding of these voting systems, who is also passionate > about the experiment. I nominate Mark Nottingham. But in case he has more important work, I will volunteer as a backup. Cheers Chaals >> 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. > > At the AB discussion, we also discussed how long we should run this > experiment for. My recollection was 3 elections. Is that your > recommendation? > >>>> >>>> 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. > > Given that the Team needs to tabulate these results, it would be > useful if there were available open source software to use for each of > these schemes. Do you know of any? I assume that manual tabulation > will be quite tedious. > >>>> >>>> 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 10:18:36 UTC