Re: Voting experiment

LGTM.

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.

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/

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 23:12:49 UTC