[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