On May 25, 2019, at 5:24 PM, James Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some bugs:
>
> * R955 specifies invalid options are eliminated before the process
> starts; it's probably good to keep that.
>
> * The voting strength of each ballot should matter.
>
> * When determining whether an option has a majority, votes for PRESENT
> or listing only options that have been eliminated shouldn't count.
Thank you. Given how foundational voting is to Agora’s integrity, I am
deliberately taking this slowly to give time for this kind of feedback. I think
anyone rushing to pass changes to the voting system should be viewed with
suspicion, obviously.
I had not intended to remove the language specifying that a ballot of voting
strength of N is handled as if it were N identical ballots. I suspect that
there may be differences between that (current) interpretation, and your
interpretation below that the sum of the voting strengths determines the
ordering of candidates, but I haven’t done the math to prove it.
Good catch on PRESENT and on eliminating options which have become invalid.
Thanks also to omd for pointing out must/MUST confusion and the lack of a “by
announcement” clause or equivalent.
> 2. For an instant runoff decision, the vote collector determines the
> outcome by the following process. During the process, an option's
> first-place voting strength is defined to be the sum of the voting
> strengths of the ballots that list that option before all other
> options that have not been eliminated, and the remaining voting
> strength is defined to be the sum of voting strengths of valid
> ballots in this decision that list at least one option that has not
> been eliminated.
It might be worth making the modal (or at least modal-ish) nature of these
predicates explicit by adding a few “at a specific point in time”s or similar
language, but I like the overall structure here of pulling the definitions out
front so that they can be applied at various points throughout the ballot
counting procedure.
> a) First, all entities that are part of a valid vote, but were not a
> valid option at the end of the voting period, or are disqualified
> by the rule providing for the decision, are eliminated.
Probably want to use “ballot” or “vote” consistently, rather than alternating.
> b) If no ballot lists an option that hasn't been eliminated, the
> outcome is null.
A useful addition.
> c) Otherwise, the vote collector successively eliminates options
> until some option's first-place voting strength is more than half
> the remaining voting strength, and that remaining option is the
> outcome of the decision. For an option to be eliminated, its first
> place voting strength must be less than or equal to the first
> place voting strengths of all other options, and if it is equal to
> another's, the vote collector must specify which option was
> eliminated in the announcement of the decision's resolution.
omd’s must/MUST observation applies here, too. Perhaps the following?
c) Otherwise, the vote collector MUST successive eliminate options
until some option's first-place voting strength is more than half
the remaining voting strength. The outcome of the decision is that
option.
When eliminating an option, the vote collector MUST eliminate an
option whose first place voting strength is less than or equal to
the first place voting strength of all other options. If the
eliminated option's first place voting strength is equal to
another options', then the vote collector MUST additionally
specify which option they eliminated in the announcement of the
decision's resolution.
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
