[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

Thu Jun 16 13:23:52 UTC 2016

Interesting possibility. Probably more likely if 
the leading candidate has "almost" won.

Alan

At 16/06/2016 02:42 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>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" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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" 
>><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> 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, 
>>itÃ¢€™s fs 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: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114
>>           <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>+216 52 385 114
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>>Le 10 juin 2016 Ãƒ  22:22, Alan Greenberg 
>>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > a ÃƒÂ©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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>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+(ALAC) 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>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+(ALAC)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160616/8b46fdd9/attachment.html>