[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Jun 15 16:22:51 UTC 2016

I would agree with Tijani's option as well, for similar reason; I think
it's just fair not to bring the leading contestant in the tie breaking
process between 2 other contestants.



Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 15 Jun 2016 16:59, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> My inclination is to option 2. I find it more logical and preserve the
> right of the candidate with the best score. I think that the first vote is
> done without side consideration, means that each electorate member will
> vote for their preferred candidate, and its result is the more relevant
> with the electorate choice. So, it’s fair to respect it and keep the
> candidate with the best score and rerun the vote to break the tie between
> the tied candidates.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>             +216 52 385 114
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Le 10 juin 2016 à 22:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a
> écrit :
> 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
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160615/1857744e/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list