[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Sat Jun 11 00:08:56 UTC 2016
My vote is for #1- give everyone a second go at the vote, but to consider
the results of the last vote and what might give the best result in this
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> My personal preference is option 1 for the following reasons:
> - I prefer verifiable processes and thus eliminate option 4.
> - I prefer to give the electorate a second chance before resorting to a
> random selection and so eliminate option 3.
> - I believe that voters should always be encouraged to vote for the
> candidate they actually would like to win (in the eventuality that their
> best preference does not win) and thus I eliminate option 2.
> I am sure there are other opinions, and I look forward to hearing the
> reasoning behind them.
> At 10/06/2016 05:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent a few days ago, there are
>> several options to one of the voting stages in the selection of the
>> At-Large Director. The RoP revision group did not reach unanimity on which
>> option to pick (largely because of the deadline required to sent the
>> revision to the ALAC to allow us to approve the revisions in Helsinki).
>> The options have to do with the reduction of three candidates to two. In
>> the optimal case, one of the three candidates will have fewer votes (or
>> first preference votes) and will be dropped, resulting in two candidates
>> being left. The difficulty arises if the two candidates tie for last place,
>> but with the leading candidate not receiving an absolute majority of votes
>> needed to be declared the final winner.
>> Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, with the hope that some
>> positions may have changed. This would be done just once. If the second
>> vote results in a tie for the last position (even if it is not the same
>> pair as the first time), one of those tied is eliminated based on a
>> verifiable random selection. The down side of this method is that no one
>> may alter their vote and we would have to use a random selection.
>> Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two tied candidates. If the
>> results between the two is tied, a verifiable random selection would be
>> used to eliminate one of them. The down side of this option is something
>> called "strategic voting". Those electors who originally voted for the
>> leading candidate (the one not in this runoff) may not vote for the person
>> they prefer, but could vote for the one they perceive as the weakest
>> opponent to their preferred candidate.
>> Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the two tied candidates will
>> be dropped based on a verifiable random selection.
>> Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be used in the first round (to
>> narrow the slate down to three). The BigPulse STV system will always
>> eliminate one candidate, but if it must resort to a random selection, it
>> would be internal to the voting system and would not be verifiable (ie it
>> would have to be trusted to have used a truly random selection.
>> Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which option to use, it would be
>> good to begin the discussion now and not wait for Helsinki.
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ALAC