[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

Wed Jun 15 20:09:39 UTC 2016

Greetings all:

I do not have religion on this question. I think option two is more 
easily understood. At least, I understand its inner logic.

Considerations of strategic voting in this instance, where voters for #1 
vote for #3 so as to displace candidate #2 envisage a rare occurrence . 
The case where candidates #2 and #3 are tied will occur more often than 
a dime landing on its edge, I grant you, but I do not see that occurring 
often enough to be a concern.

I remain open to more compelling argument, but for the time being I find 
option #2 to be the best available.

Tim Denton

On 6/15/2016 12:22 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 15 Jun 2016 16:59, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn 
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>     +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>     Le 10 juin 2016 à 22:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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)
>     <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

-- 
Timothy Denton 613-789-5397 line 613 222 1850 cell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160615/0eb3e44c/attachment.html>