[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
Wafa Dahmani
wafa at ati.tn
Thu Jun 16 10:25:39 UTC 2016
Dear all,
I'm also in favour of option 2 in which the process sounds fair.
Regards
Le 16/06/2016 06:50, Seun Ojedeji a écrit :
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <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 Ã 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
> <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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160616/b10ca103/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list