[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

Thu Jun 16 06:42:26 UTC 2016

One of the arguments that was raised for Option 1 was that if there was a
rerun of the voting for all 3 candidates, then there was a possibility that
the front runner could increase their vote and get 50% or more of the
votes. Thus not only winning that election, but winning the actual seat and
closing down any further angst for candidates and voters.. :)

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> I am not sure I agree that supporters of leading contestant will go for
> the weakest among the 2 tied contestants. I believe they will just go for
> their second preferred candidate which cannot be termed weakest (in
> politics, the weakest is the one with the lowest votes ;-) ).
>
> The other point is that, if the ballot has option of abstaining(or "none
> of the above"), those who are so convinced may also use that as well.
>
> Overall I think the goal is to go for something almost close to best and
> fair, I think option 2 satisfies that.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 16 Jun 2016 5:43 a.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> As I said, I think that option 2 will lead to strategic voting where the
>> supporters of the leading candidate may vote for the WEAKEST candidate
>> instead of for their preferred choice (among the two), and I believe that
>> in the final race, we should have the two strongest candidates against each
>> other.
>>
>> You are correct that option 1 brings the leading contestant in, but
>> option 2 allows the electors who support this candidate to vote (since we
>> could not exclude them!)
>>
>> But clearly others have a different views. Makes life interesting!
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 15/06/2016 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>
>> 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, itâ€™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 Ã  22:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > a
>> Ã©crit :
>>
>> 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)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160615/6499ddcc/attachment.html>