- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:24:09 +0200
- To: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
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
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 06:24:42 UTC