<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">There are also numerous open source and other solutions. Finding software to run an STV election should no be difficult.<div class=""><a href="http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_tools.htm#multi-winner" class="">http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_tools.htm#multi-winner</a></div><div class="">A multiple candidate election using STV with quotas can get a little fiddly mathematically. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I personally favour an STV type system. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">David</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 8 Sep 2016, at 4:18 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <<a href="mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com" class="">langdonorr@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">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 class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 Sep 2016 5:59 AM, "avri doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org" class="">avri@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">hi,<br class="">
<br class="">
So in n=n (candidates = positions) elections, like the one we just had,<br class="">
no need to vote at all? seems convenient.<br class="">
<br class="">
BTW: with the idea of moving this discussion off of the NCSG Discussion<br class="">
list. I find it interesting that we have a discussion here that<br class="">
motivates some normally silent members to get involved, so now we decide<br class="">
we need to move that discussion to another list? Curious. And sure<br class="">
there may be more important things to talk about, and when discussion<br class="">
starts on them, they would end up on this list as well. Or would we move<br class="">
them to another new list at that time. Curious.<br class="">
<br class="">
avri<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On 07-Sep-16 14:57, Dan Krimm wrote:<br class="">
> Okay, I see the STV explanation. It's similar to an IRV process<br class="">
> (especially in that it iterates tabulation rounds by eliminating one<br class="">
> candidate at a time) except it stops when you narrow down to the<br class="">
> number of seats open, so it works for multiple-seat races, and need<br class="">
> not invoke parties (i.e., its not necessarily "proportional<br class="">
> representation" per se -- NCSG does not involve proportional<br class="">
> representation -- all office holders represent the entire SG, not some<br class="">
> subset of the SG, and I would suggest not changing that).<br class="">
><br class="">
> Dan<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> On 9/7/16 11:40 AM, Neal McBurnett wrote:<br class="">
>> STV (Single transferable vote) is designed for proportional<br class="">
>> representation, and is not the same as IRV.<br class="">
>> But, indeed, both of them use ranked-choice ballots, and I'm sorry to<br class="">
>> say that there is much confusion in terminology around the many<br class="">
>> methods that use ranked-choice ballots.<br class="">
>><br class="">
>> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr class="">Single_transferable_vote</a><br class="">
>><br class="">
>> I agree that good ballot design and a well designed user interface<br class="">
>> for voting is critical when using any voting system. Unfortunately<br class="">
>> that it is hard, and ICANN may well not offer a good option there.<br class="">
>><br class="">
>> I also agree that limiting the number of allowed rankings (done to<br class="">
>> simplify a paper ballot design) is not a good idea, and defeats some<br class="">
>> of the properties that ranked-choice methods offer.<br class="">
>><br class="">
>> These are some of the reasons I brought up Reweighted Range Voting,<br class="">
>> which is easier to implement and perhaps simpler to explain.<br class="">
>><br class="">
>> <a href="http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://rangevoting.org/RRV.<wbr class="">html</a><br class="">
>><br class="">
>> But again, there are a number of hurdles, including the need to amend<br class="">
>> the charter, which itself requires more participation that we've<br class="">
>> gotten in recent elections.<br class="">
>><br class="">
>> Neal McBurnett <a href="http://neal.mcburnett.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://neal.mcburnett.org/</a><br class="">
>><br class="">
>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:20:56AM -0700, Dan Krimm wrote:<br class="">
>>> When a new WG is formed, this discussion should move there. But for<br class="">
>>> now it remains here on the general list.<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> One issue about STV (also known as IRV in the US -- instant runoff<br class="">
>>> vote, which is one way to tabulate such ballots but not the only<br class="">
>>> one) is that it is designed for single-seat races. Most of the<br class="">
>>> questions about the recent election had to do with the multiple-seat<br class="">
>>> election and the role of NotA.<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> Just one point about IRV: in the San Francisco Bay Area this has<br class="">
>>> been implemented for a variety of local/municipal elections, but I<br class="">
>>> have great reservations about the local method because it limits the<br class="">
>>> vote to three candidates per ballot even if there are more than four<br class="">
>>> candidates running for the single seat (with four candidates, the<br class="">
>>> one not voted for becomes an implicit 4th choice). Thus, it<br class="">
>>> potentially disenfranchises many valid ballot choices (if none of<br class="">
>>> your three chosen candidates ends up in the final-round head-to-head<br class="">
>>> runoff contest, your vote is effectively irrelevant -- *even though<br class="">
>>> you showed up to vote and cast a ballot*). If there is any talk at<br class="">
>>> all of STV, it *must* be implemented with a full rank-order<br class="">
>>> preference on all candidates running for the office, or else it<br class="">
>>> undermines the whole purpose of that voting system (to allow<br class="">
>>> everyone a voice on the final match without being subject to the<br class="">
>>> split-vote effect ... usually ... ).<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> To Paul's point about voter confusion with STV, the best way to<br class="">
>>> avoid that is with a firm UI that prevents misvotes upon input (and<br class="">
>>> explains errors when necessary -- a learning/teaching tool as well<br class="">
>>> as an input-cleaning tool), rather than a simple form to be filled<br class="">
>>> out like a piece of paper where all sorts of things can go wrong. I<br class="">
>>> doubt that ICANN would provide such a voting system for us -- we'd<br class="">
>>> have to build it ourselves.<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> But honestly, I'm not sure if there is a way to design STV<br class="">
>>> tabulation for multiple-seat races -- never heard of such a thing.<br class="">
>>> Proportional system is more likely in that case, but that entails a<br class="">
>>> party-based system and we don't have "parties" in NCSG -- there are<br class="">
>>> only "independents" in our elections. (I would firmly resist the<br class="">
>>> idea of making the constituencies into "parties" in this context.<br class="">
>>> Better to push back against tribalism in our own ranks, rather than<br class="">
>>> systematically encourage it.)<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> Range voting is an attractive notion, which also avoids the split<br class="">
>>> vote problem and some other issues as well (IRV has some potential<br class="">
>>> special cases that become counterintuitive). It's basically how<br class="">
>>> Olympics are scored with multiple judges per competition. And I<br class="">
>>> believe it could be applied easily with voter weights. Not sure<br class="">
>>> about multiple-seat races, though -- top-N winners?<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> Would have to think more carefully if it accomplishes the mission of<br class="">
>>> NotA...<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> Dan<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> On 9/7/16 10:08 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br class="">
>>>> I'd be curious Neal for your response to what I understand is the<br class="">
>>>> major<br class="">
>>>> complaint against RRV and SPV methods -- namely that voters often are<br class="">
>>>> confused by them. Perhaps this electorate is sufficiently attuned<br class="">
>>>> that it<br class="">
>>>> would not suffer that problem ... but am I correct that it can be a<br class="">
>>>> problem,<br class="">
>>>> I think, in other settings.<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> Paul<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> Paul Rosenzweig<br class="">
>>>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" class="">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr class="">redbranchconsulting.com</a><br class="">
>>>> O: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" class="">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><br class="">
>>>> M: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" class="">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><br class="">
>>>> VOIP: <a href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" class="">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><br class="">
>>>> <a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br class="">
>>>> My PGP Key: <a href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://redbranchconsulting.<wbr class="">com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</a><br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br class="">
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" class="">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.<wbr class="">SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf<br class="">
>>>> Of Neal<br class="">
>>>> McBurnett<br class="">
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 11:02 AM<br class="">
>>>> To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" class="">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br class="">
>>>> Subject: Re: voting/tabulation process for future elections<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> I'd also like to be on the list, if it is created.<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> Joonas, I have made the case for a Proportional Representation (PR)<br class="">
>>>> method<br class="">
>>>> to be used, and STV (a PR method) would be an improvement over the<br class="">
>>>> current<br class="">
>>>> approach, I think. Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) is another worthy<br class="">
>>>> option.<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> Neal McBurnett <a href="http://neal.mcburnett.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://neal.mcburnett.org/</a><br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 12:09:32PM +0300, Joonas Mäkinen wrote:<br class="">
>>>>> I'd like to join the list too if such is created. Has there already<br class="">
>>>>> been a reasoning for/against Single Transferable Vote (SVT)? It gives<br class="">
>>>> great voter satisfaction and discourages tactical voting.<br class="">
>>>>> maanantai 5. syyskuuta 2016 Dan Krimm <<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com" class="">dan@musicunbound.com</a>><br class="">
>>>>> kirjoitti:<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> +1<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> Now is the time to resolve the election issues, while the<br class="">
>>>>> topic is<br class="">
>>>> bright in our minds. Let's not put it on the back burner,<br class="">
>>>>> but instead push through and find the consensus. We've<br class="">
>>>>> already had<br class="">
>>>> several suggestions about how to fix the process, let's<br class="">
>>>>> continue exploring.<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> One suggestion that was made was to have a No vote for each<br class="">
>>>>> candidate<br class="">
>>>> in multiple-winner races. There was multiple support for<br class="">
>>>>> that, but also a suggestion that that was not sufficient even<br class="">
>>>>> so.<br class="">
>>>> Let's continue the discussion.<br class="">
>>>>> Dan<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> On 9/5/16 12:32 AM, dorothy g wrote:<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> Congrats to all! and finally we can get to work on<br class="">
>>>>> fixing our<br class="">
>>>> election regulations so that we can have peaceful and<br class="">
>>>>> transparent elections next time around<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> --<br class="">
>>>>> Joonas "JoonasD6" Mäkinen<br class="">
>>>>> <a href="http://www.joonasmakinen.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">www.joonasmakinen.com</a><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> Vice Chairperson (international affairs), Pirate Youth of Finland,<br class="">
>>>>> <a href="http://www.piraattinuoret.fi/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">www.piraattinuoret.fi</a> Vice Chairperson, Alternative Party,<br class="">
>>>>> <a href="http://www.altparty.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">www.altparty.org</a><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> Faculty of Medicine +<br class="">
>>>>> Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science<br class="">
>>>>> University of Helsinki<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> mobile <a href="tel:%2B358%2040%20700%205190" value="+358407005190" class="">+358 40 700 5190</a><br class="">
>>>>> Facebook, Twitter, G+, Skype, IRC, Steam: JoonasD6<br class="">
><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
---<br class="">
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br class="">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://www.avast.com/<wbr class="">antivirus</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>