<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear all,<br>
I'm also in favour of option 2 in which the process sounds fair.<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 16/06/2016 06:50, Seun Ojedeji a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6h+z0u38qMO+=KkqWkaZv6g2P1btejfq8LdsTLh-VmhXg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hi Alan,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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 ;-) ).</p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Overall I think the goal is to go for something
almost close to best and fair, I think option 2 satisfies that.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 16 Jun 2016 5:43 a.m., "Alan
Greenberg" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
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. <br>
<br>
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!)<br>
<br>
But clearly others have a different views. Makes life
interesting!<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 15/06/2016 12:22 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 15 Jun 2016 16:59, "Tijani BEN JEMAA"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn" target="_blank">
tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd><font color="#002E7A">Hi Alan,</font><br>
<font color="#002E7A"><br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font color="#002E7A">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.<br>
</font></dd>
<br>
<dd>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</dd>
<dd>Tijani BEN JEMAA<br>
</dd>
<dd>Executive Director<br>
</dd>
<dd>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
(FMAI)<br>
</dd>
<dd>Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114" target="_blank">+216
98 330 114</a><br>
</dd>
<dd>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114" target="_blank">+216
52 385 114</a><br>
</dd>
<dd>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Le 10 juin 2016 Ã 22:22, Alan Greenberg
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"
target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> a écrit :<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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).<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the
two tied candidates
will be dropped based on a verifiable random
selection.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.</dd>
</blockquote>
</dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
</dd>
<dd><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
target="_blank">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
</dd>
<dd>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac"
target="_blank">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29"
target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br>
</dd>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a>
At-Large Online: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>