<p dir="ltr">On the matter of STV's (and variations thereof)... and the question of if ICANN would/could provide a system to use => should the decision go in such a way (and as an Aussie I am totally comfortable with these systems as it is what we use here) please note that the ALAC / At-Large Community, has, since 2007 used a variety of voting and ballot options for different purposes including STV variants and ICANN has provided us with an account and access with the *very flexible and transparant* third party 'Big Pulse' proprietary online system (which also does nice public opinion polling as well BTW) so ICANN has an account with the providor and I see no reason why NCSG could not utalise that if it wished... Perhaps a call with our account managers at this company (Heidi Ulrich could provide details here) would also help us understand some options and opportunities... I know this has benefited the ALAC / At-Large in the past when we have reviewed processes for our polling and voting from time to time...</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 Sep 2016 5:59 AM, "avri doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org">avri@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">hi,<br>
<br>
So in n=n (candidates = positions) elections, like the one we just had,<br>
no need to vote at all? seems convenient.<br>
<br>
BTW: with the idea of moving this discussion off of the NCSG Discussion<br>
list. I find it interesting that we have a discussion here that<br>
motivates some normally silent members to get involved, so now we decide<br>
we need to move that discussion to another list? Curious. And sure<br>
there may be more important things to talk about, and when discussion<br>
starts on them, they would end up on this list as well. Or would we move<br>
them to another new list at that time. Curious.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07-Sep-16 14:57, Dan Krimm wrote:<br>
> Okay, I see the STV explanation. It's similar to an IRV process<br>
> (especially in that it iterates tabulation rounds by eliminating one<br>
> candidate at a time) except it stops when you narrow down to the<br>
> number of seats open, so it works for multiple-seat races, and need<br>
> not invoke parties (i.e., its not necessarily "proportional<br>
> representation" per se -- NCSG does not involve proportional<br>
> representation -- all office holders represent the entire SG, not some<br>
> subset of the SG, and I would suggest not changing that).<br>
><br>
> Dan<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 9/7/16 11:40 AM, Neal McBurnett wrote:<br>
>> STV (Single transferable vote) is designed for proportional<br>
>> representation, and is not the same as IRV.<br>
>> But, indeed, both of them use ranked-choice ballots, and I'm sorry to<br>
>> say that there is much confusion in terminology around the many<br>
>> methods that use ranked-choice ballots.<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Single_transferable_vote</a><br>
>><br>
>> I agree that good ballot design and a well designed user interface<br>
>> for voting is critical when using any voting system. Unfortunately<br>
>> that it is hard, and ICANN may well not offer a good option there.<br>
>><br>
>> I also agree that limiting the number of allowed rankings (done to<br>
>> simplify a paper ballot design) is not a good idea, and defeats some<br>
>> of the properties that ranked-choice methods offer.<br>
>><br>
>> These are some of the reasons I brought up Reweighted Range Voting,<br>
>> which is easier to implement and perhaps simpler to explain.<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://rangevoting.org/RRV.<wbr>html</a><br>
>><br>
>> But again, there are a number of hurdles, including the need to amend<br>
>> the charter, which itself requires more participation that we've<br>
>> gotten in recent elections.<br>
>><br>
>> Neal McBurnett <a href="http://neal.mcburnett.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://neal.mcburnett.org/</a><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:20:56AM -0700, Dan Krimm wrote:<br>
>>> When a new WG is formed, this discussion should move there. But for<br>
>>> now it remains here on the general list.<br>
>>><br>
>>> One issue about STV (also known as IRV in the US -- instant runoff<br>
>>> vote, which is one way to tabulate such ballots but not the only<br>
>>> one) is that it is designed for single-seat races. Most of the<br>
>>> questions about the recent election had to do with the multiple-seat<br>
>>> election and the role of NotA.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just one point about IRV: in the San Francisco Bay Area this has<br>
>>> been implemented for a variety of local/municipal elections, but I<br>
>>> have great reservations about the local method because it limits the<br>
>>> vote to three candidates per ballot even if there are more than four<br>
>>> candidates running for the single seat (with four candidates, the<br>
>>> one not voted for becomes an implicit 4th choice). Thus, it<br>
>>> potentially disenfranchises many valid ballot choices (if none of<br>
>>> your three chosen candidates ends up in the final-round head-to-head<br>
>>> runoff contest, your vote is effectively irrelevant -- *even though<br>
>>> you showed up to vote and cast a ballot*). If there is any talk at<br>
>>> all of STV, it *must* be implemented with a full rank-order<br>
>>> preference on all candidates running for the office, or else it<br>
>>> undermines the whole purpose of that voting system (to allow<br>
>>> everyone a voice on the final match without being subject to the<br>
>>> split-vote effect ... usually ... ).<br>
>>><br>
>>> To Paul's point about voter confusion with STV, the best way to<br>
>>> avoid that is with a firm UI that prevents misvotes upon input (and<br>
>>> explains errors when necessary -- a learning/teaching tool as well<br>
>>> as an input-cleaning tool), rather than a simple form to be filled<br>
>>> out like a piece of paper where all sorts of things can go wrong. I<br>
>>> doubt that ICANN would provide such a voting system for us -- we'd<br>
>>> have to build it ourselves.<br>
>>><br>
>>> But honestly, I'm not sure if there is a way to design STV<br>
>>> tabulation for multiple-seat races -- never heard of such a thing.<br>
>>> Proportional system is more likely in that case, but that entails a<br>
>>> party-based system and we don't have "parties" in NCSG -- there are<br>
>>> only "independents" in our elections. (I would firmly resist the<br>
>>> idea of making the constituencies into "parties" in this context.<br>
>>> Better to push back against tribalism in our own ranks, rather than<br>
>>> systematically encourage it.)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Range voting is an attractive notion, which also avoids the split<br>
>>> vote problem and some other issues as well (IRV has some potential<br>
>>> special cases that become counterintuitive). It's basically how<br>
>>> Olympics are scored with multiple judges per competition. And I<br>
>>> believe it could be applied easily with voter weights. Not sure<br>
>>> about multiple-seat races, though -- top-N winners?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Would have to think more carefully if it accomplishes the mission of<br>
>>> NotA...<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dan<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 9/7/16 10:08 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
>>>> I'd be curious Neal for your response to what I understand is the<br>
>>>> major<br>
>>>> complaint against RRV and SPV methods -- namely that voters often are<br>
>>>> confused by them. Perhaps this electorate is sufficiently attuned<br>
>>>> that it<br>
>>>> would not suffer that problem ... but am I correct that it can be a<br>
>>>> problem,<br>
>>>> I think, in other settings.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Paul<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>>>> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br>
>>>> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br>
>>>> VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>>>> My PGP Key: <a href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redbranchconsulting.<wbr>com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.<wbr>SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf<br>
>>>> Of Neal<br>
>>>> McBurnett<br>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 11:02 AM<br>
>>>> To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
>>>> Subject: Re: voting/tabulation process for future elections<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I'd also like to be on the list, if it is created.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Joonas, I have made the case for a Proportional Representation (PR)<br>
>>>> method<br>
>>>> to be used, and STV (a PR method) would be an improvement over the<br>
>>>> current<br>
>>>> approach, I think. Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) is another worthy<br>
>>>> option.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Neal McBurnett <a href="http://neal.mcburnett.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://neal.mcburnett.org/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 12:09:32PM +0300, Joonas Mäkinen wrote:<br>
>>>>> I'd like to join the list too if such is created. Has there already<br>
>>>>> been a reasoning for/against Single Transferable Vote (SVT)? It gives<br>
>>>> great voter satisfaction and discourages tactical voting.<br>
>>>>> maanantai 5. syyskuuta 2016 Dan Krimm <<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com">dan@musicunbound.com</a>><br>
>>>>> kirjoitti:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> +1<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Now is the time to resolve the election issues, while the<br>
>>>>> topic is<br>
>>>> bright in our minds. Let's not put it on the back burner,<br>
>>>>> but instead push through and find the consensus. We've<br>
>>>>> already had<br>
>>>> several suggestions about how to fix the process, let's<br>
>>>>> continue exploring.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> One suggestion that was made was to have a No vote for each<br>
>>>>> candidate<br>
>>>> in multiple-winner races. There was multiple support for<br>
>>>>> that, but also a suggestion that that was not sufficient even<br>
>>>>> so.<br>
>>>> Let's continue the discussion.<br>
>>>>> Dan<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 9/5/16 12:32 AM, dorothy g wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Congrats to all! and finally we can get to work on<br>
>>>>> fixing our<br>
>>>> election regulations so that we can have peaceful and<br>
>>>>> transparent elections next time around<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>> Joonas "JoonasD6" Mäkinen<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.joonasmakinen.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.joonasmakinen.com</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Vice Chairperson (international affairs), Pirate Youth of Finland,<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.piraattinuoret.fi" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.piraattinuoret.fi</a> Vice Chairperson, Alternative Party,<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.altparty.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.altparty.org</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Faculty of Medicine +<br>
>>>>> Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science<br>
>>>>> University of Helsinki<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> mobile <a href="tel:%2B358%2040%20700%205190" value="+358407005190">+358 40 700 5190</a><br>
>>>>> Facebook, Twitter, G+, Skype, IRC, Steam: JoonasD6<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/<wbr>antivirus</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>