- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 21:18:30 -0400
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>
- CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
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. > > 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/ >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 01:18:42 UTC