Re: Voting system for elections
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 25 July 2016 at 19:10, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > If the members could come to a consensus on the type of voting we should
> > switch to, I would be more than happy to write the resolution.
>
> It seems like a few people seem to find the argument for RRV
> convincing, and no one has objected.
RRV is not AFAICT used anywhere else for political elections. Even
the web page you produced previously just produces one example of RRV
having been used elsewhere _at all_ and that's for selecting Oscar
nominees for one particular Oscar category.
SPI should adopt a system widely used elsewhere.
STV is the only widely adopted proportional voting system suitable for
SPI (the others are supplementary/additional member systems, and party
list systems).
STV is used:
In the UK:
* The Northern Ireland Assembly
* Northern Irish local government elections
* Scottish local government elections
In Australia:
* The Australian federal Senate and federal House of Representatives
* The legislative assemblies (etc.) of all the states etc. (New South
Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia,
Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory)
* (Many?) Australian local councils
(and then I got bored.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_the_single_transferable_vote
> If no one object, I'd suggest just rolling with an RRV resolution, and
> see if anyone minds at that point. Because we should have something
> sensible and robust in place prior to some future hypothetical big
> voting fight...
SPI should adopt STV.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> It seems like a few people seem to find the argument for RRV
> convincing, and no one has objected.
I feel the need to repost here, an article I posted to spi-private on
the 4th of August:
From: Ian Jackson
To:
Cc: spi-priv...@lists.spi-inc.org
Subject: Re: [Spi-private] SPI board election method, reanalysis of 2016
election
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 02:15:57 +0100
[ Someone wrote asking for a: ]
> [ detailed set of analysis criteria of multi-winner voting systems ]
[ (quote redacted -iwj 16.8.16) ]
SPI should not be in the business of detailed analysis of voting
systems, let alone the development of novel voting systems. Nor
should SPI adopt a system which is highly unusual.
There is only one multi-winner proportional voting system that makes
sense for SPI [1] and has nontrivial adoption in the world at large.
That system is STV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
[1] There are a handful of other common proportional multi-winner
systems, including Additional Member systems, and party list PR, but
they are obviously inappropriate for us.
The right direction for this conversation is a discussion of which
other respected institution's specific set of STV rules (answers to
the edge cases) we should adopt. We would like one which has a clear
description, from an authoritative source.
Ideally we want a variant of which there are already one or more
computerised implementations. (Even if we end up writing our own
computer implementation, an existing program will provide a useful
check and perhaps even come with some test vectors.)
Having done another set of searches I would suggest that we should
adopt Scottish STV. That is, the STV which is used in Scotland to
elect local councils. Here it is laid out in the legislation:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/crossheading/counting-of-votes/made
The rules on actual counting are paragraphs 45-52.
I also found this detailed description with examples:
http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/RES/STV-WIGM.pdf
Allegedly this is implemented in OpenVote:
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/openstv
https://github.com/OpenTechStrategies/openstv
(now taken proprietary but the Free version remains available,
including version 1.6 in Debian.)
Thus this system has a clear and authoritative statement of the rules,
and seems to have at least one computerised implementation.
Or we could consider following the lead of the Apache Software
Foundation. They use a Meek variant of STV and their page here
suggests that they have found at least two implemnetations (although
the fact that they've forked one of them isn't encouraging):
https://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting
I haven't found (so far) a clear statement of the rules, in prose.
Wikipedia suggests that New Zealand uses a version of Meek STV (and
that Stack Exchange does too for some purposes), but I'm not sure if
they're the same.
I also found this list of tools:
http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_tools.htm
[ irrelevant section from -private deleted -iwj 16.8.16 ]
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
On 08/16/2016 07:04 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
On 25 July 2016 at 19:10, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
SPI should adopt a system widely used elsewhere.
Correct.
STV is the only widely adopted proportional voting system suitable for
SPI (the others are supplementary/additional member systems, and party
list systems).
I don't follow voting systems in anyway until this last election and
funny enough, I ran into open source[1] project that is executing a vote
right now, using STV.
Sincerely,
JD
1. PHP-FIG
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad > system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose > composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate, > the majoritarian or consensus candidates (as applicable) will sweep > the board. I have a concern about this: If, for example, there were an issue that sharply divides the SPI membership say 66% to 33%, an STV election would elect 6 board members in favor of A and 3 in favor of B, whereas a Condorcet election might elect 9 in favor of A. The problem with the STV board would be that they would constantly disagree with each other instead of getting work done. An analogy in "real" politics is: A parliament should generally reflect the population's wishes proportionally, but the executive is generally drawn only from one or a few aligned parties. Maybe this isn't a problem in practice, or maybe you/some actually want to the board to work that way, but I think we should consider what the nature of the board is or should be, and which election method best realizes that. ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> Let me describe two STV pathologies that actually happened in the last
> couple years, and certainly raised my eyebrows.
>
> First, the result of an election can depend on the order of ballots.
> In one case, the order was scrambled during a recount, resulting in
> uncertainty about the correct result. Strategic re-ordering of ballots
> is an actual issue. The most common attempt to address this is an
> initial random shuffle, with the consequent order religiously
> preserved for purposes of replication.
This seems to be a consequence of the use of the (ancient) Hare method
for transferring ballots from a winning candidate's surplus: ie,
choosing ballots at random. I don't think anyone would propose
deploying such a system today.
Scottish STV (which is what I'm advocating as a concrete proposal)
uses fractional weight transfers and does not depend on the order of
ballots.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/crossheading/counting-of-votes/made
> Second, there was a case where (to simplify) candidate X in a Dublin
> precinct sent around a circular asking their supporters to list X
> second on their ballots and Y first, where Y was a candidate with
> ostensibly no hope of winning. This was to serve to increase the power
> of these ballots. My native Irish friends found this a delightful
> tale, particularly with all the fascinating details filled in and
> appropriately embellished. Perhaps it is. But it didn't make me more
> of an STV fan.
It is difficult to know from what you've said whether this was really
advantageous for X's voters. It is true that this kind of tactical
voting ("free riding") can sometimes be problem in STV. But from the
description of RRV you have linked to, I don't see how it solves this
free riding problem. That is, a similar tactical approach would tend
to be possible, in similar circumstances, when RRV was used.
And range voting suffers from two additional much more serioues linked
tactical voting problems: to have the most effect, each voter should
choose a cutoff point, and vote all candidates either 0% or 100%
depending whether they are worse than the cutoff. Where to place the
cutoff (ie how many candidates to vote 100%) depends on a deep
understanding of the likely behaviour of the other voters.
Your suggestion that SPI should adopt RRV, rather than STV, would be
more convincing if:
- RRV was adopted elsewhere. It's not. Everyone else is using
STV. (Or maybe FPTP, AMS or party lists.)
- Neutral electoral reform campaigners usually advocated RRV.
They don't. They usually advocate STV.
- Anyone explained how RRV solves the free riding problem which is
the most generally touted weakness of STV. Even the RRV web
page on rangevoting.org does not do so. I think RRV does not
solve this problem. (Indeed the problem is probably inherent.)
- RRV was advocated for use as a proportional multi-winner system by
people who favoured usually-Condorcet-satisfying systems (eg
explicitly Condorcet-based systems like Debian's, or even AV/IRV)
for single-winner votes.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> > system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> > composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
> > the majoritarian or consensus candidates (as applicable) will sweep
> > the board.
>
> I have a concern about this:
>
> If, for example, there were an issue that sharply divides the SPI
> membership say 66% to 33%, an STV election would elect 6 board members
> in favor of A and 3 in favor of B, whereas a Condorcet election might
> elect 9 in favor of A. The problem with the STV board would be that
> they would constantly disagree with each other instead of getting work done.
I hope we would only elect grown-ups to the board. 6 out of 9 is of
course still a majority.
> An analogy in "real" politics is: A parliament should generally reflect
> the population's wishes proportionally, but the executive is generally
> drawn only from one or a few aligned parties.
Most British membership-run NGOs elect their board by STV. It hasn't
led to this kind of disaster.
Also, and sorry to keep coming back to this, but it is a key point:
> > SPI should adopt a system widely used elsewhere.
AFAIAA no other organisation elects a multi-member board or committee
using repeated-Condorcet.
(Nor AFAIAA has this multi-winner repeated-Condorcet even ever been
proposed in the academic literature) We have invented it, and adopted
it, almost by accident - I think just by analogy with Debian's use of
Condorcet for single-winner elections.
> Maybe this isn't a problem in practice, or maybe you/some actually want
> to the board to work that way, but I think we should consider what the
> nature of the board is or should be, and which election method best
> realizes that.
It would be nice if we had a board election system which didn't
produce Debian Debian Debian Debian out of a mixed electorate.
Ian.
(in the context of SPI, clearly most closely associated with Debian)
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
On 08/16/2016 08:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate, the majoritarian or consensus candidates (as applicable) will sweep the board. I have a concern about this: If, for example, there were an issue that sharply divides the SPI membership say 66% to 33%, an STV election would elect 6 board members in favor of A and 3 in favor of B, whereas a Condorcet election might elect 9 in favor of A. The problem with the STV board would be that they would constantly disagree with each other instead of getting work done. It is likely that the 66% is going to rule the board anyway. In fact, we saw that happen over the last several years. The advantage is that there will be *some* of the 66% who will realize the importance of getting certain things done (like Zobel helping the Treasurer finally get into an accounting system). Further you are going to have some lap over from the 33%. You will get people saying, "Hey, that actually makes sense." from the 66% that was influenced by the 33%. An analogy in "real" politics is: A parliament should generally reflect the population's wishes proportionally, but the executive is generally drawn only from one or a few aligned parties. Correct, our parliament is our board. Our officers are our executive branch. Maybe this isn't a problem in practice, or maybe you/some actually want to the board to work that way, but I think we should consider what the nature of the board is or should be, and which election method best realizes that. Progress is made through a compromise that everyone hates and loves at the same time. Sincerely, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> > system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> > composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
> > the majoritarian or consensus candidates (as applicable) will sweep
> > the board.
>
> I have a concern about this:
>
> If, for example, there were an issue that sharply divides the SPI
> membership say 66% to 33%, an STV election would elect 6 board members
> in favor of A and 3 in favor of B, whereas a Condorcet election might
> elect 9 in favor of A. The problem with the STV board would be that
> they would constantly disagree with each other instead of getting work done.
And, once again I feel the need to repost an article I posted to
spi-private:
From: Ian Jackson
To:
Cc: spi-priv...@lists.spi-inc.org
Subject: Re: [Spi-private] Vote form concerns
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:54:40 +0100
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: [Spi-private] Vote form concerns"):
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:14:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> [on adopting STV rather than repeated Condorcet]
> > Hopefully in SPI we won't get into some kind of ideological split.
> > But suppose we did.
>
> [ if it happened, would it be better to to have an ideologically
> divided board, or to have a homogenous board, and let the dissenters
> split off into a different organisation? ]
[ (quote reworded to redact -iwj 16.8.16) ]
The situation I described was an example, with a deliberately
exaggerated political difference. But the same problem applies in any
election, even if there is no big irreconcilable ideological
difference. It's just more subtle.
In SPI the most obvious "clumping" of candidates and voters is whether
they are primarily associated with Debian. We have made good progress
in making SPI more diverse in that sense. But because our voting
system exaggerates the influence of any majority, it exaggerates the
influence of those of our contributing members who are familiar with,
and support, the board candidates with a Debian background.
And, in direct answer to your question: in the absence of difficult
ideological problems, a homogenous board is *much* less desirable.
It is an established principle of good governance that diversity, on a
governing body, is a good idea.
If the minority's ideas are wrongheaded, then presumably they won't be
able to carry the board with them. But a minority often has a useful
different perspective.
(As an aside, I think there is nothing wrong with voters preferring
candidates that they are familiar with. An important part of being a
good candidate for the SPI board is to have a good reputation,
particularly in one's "origin" project(s). That does not mean that
board members from different backgrounds cannot work together. On the
contrary I think we have demonstrated that largely they can.)
[ irrelevancies from -private deleted -iwj 16.8.16 ]
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
Which STV software has both:
1. open source license
2. recent commits
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Ian Jackson <
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> > On 7/18/16 9:29 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > As has been discussed here many times previously, Condorcet is a bad
> > > system for multi-seat elections. Rather than electing a board whose
> > > composition reflects, proportionately, the views of the electorate,
> > > the majoritarian or consensus candidates (as applicable) will sweep
> > > the board.
> >
> > I have a concern about this:
> >
> > If, for example, there were an issue that sharply divides the SPI
> > membership say 66% to 33%, an STV election would elect 6 board members
> > in favor of A and 3 in favor of B, whereas a Condorcet election might
> > elect 9 in favor of A. The problem with the STV board would be that
> > they would constantly disagree with each other instead of getting work
> done.
>
> And, once again I feel the need to repost an article I posted to
> spi-private:
>
> From: Ian Jackson
> To:
> Cc: spi-priv...@lists.spi-inc.org
> Subject: Re: [Spi-private] Vote form concerns
> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:54:40 +0100
>
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: [Spi-private] Vote form concerns"):
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:14:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [on adopting STV rather than repeated Condorcet]
> > > Hopefully in SPI we won't get into some kind of ideological split.
> > > But suppose we did.
> >
> > [ if it happened, would it be better to to have an ideologically
> > divided board, or to have a homogenous board, and let the dissenters
> > split off into a different organisation? ]
> [ (quote reworded to redact -iwj 16.8.16) ]
>
> The situation I described was an example, with a deliberately
> exaggerated political difference. But the same problem applies in any
> election, even if there is no big irreconcilable ideological
> difference. It's just more subtle.
>
> In SPI the most obvious "clumping" of candidates and voters is whether
> they are primarily associated with Debian. We have made good progress
> in making SPI more diverse in that sense. But because our voting
> system exaggerates the influence of any majority, it exaggerates the
> influence of those of our contributing members who are familiar with,
> and support, the board candidates with a Debian background.
>
> And, in direct answer to your question: in the absence of difficult
> ideological problems, a homogenous board is *much* less desirable.
> It is an established principle of good governance that diversity, on a
> governing body, is a good idea.
>
> If the minority's ideas are wrongheaded, then presumably they won't be
> able to carry the board with them. But a minority often has a useful
> different perspective.
>
> (As an aside, I think there is nothing wrong with voters preferring
> candidates that they are familiar with. An important part of being a
> good candidate for the SPI board is to have a good reputation,
> particularly in one's "origin" project(s). That does not mean that
> board members from different backgrounds cannot work together. On the
> contrary I think we have demonstrated that largely they can.)
>
> [ irrelevancies from -private deleted -iwj 16.8.16 ]
>
> Ian.
>
> --
> Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
>
> If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
> a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
> ___
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
> SPI should adopt a system widely used elsewhere. > > STV is the only widely adopted proportional voting system suitable for > SPI (the others are supplementary/additional member systems, and party > list systems). I agree that STV is a pretty reasonable system, in fact it is the best widely-deployed system appropriate for non-party-list proportional representation. However, living as I do in the Republic of Ireland, I have some personal experience with pathologies of STV which are addressed by RRV. The mathematical analyses of RRV have convinced me that RRV basically dominates STV, in that although RRV does have some pathologies (as it must, due to Arrow's Theorem etc) its pathologies are a strict subset of those of STV, and it cures the most egregious-in-practice pathologies of STV. Let me describe two STV pathologies that actually happened in the last couple years, and certainly raised my eyebrows. First, the result of an election can depend on the order of ballots. In one case, the order was scrambled during a recount, resulting in uncertainty about the correct result. Strategic re-ordering of ballots is an actual issue. The most common attempt to address this is an initial random shuffle, with the consequent order religiously preserved for purposes of replication. Second, there was a case where (to simplify) candidate X in a Dublin precinct sent around a circular asking their supporters to list X second on their ballots and Y first, where Y was a candidate with ostensibly no hope of winning. This was to serve to increase the power of these ballots. My native Irish friends found this a delightful tale, particularly with all the fascinating details filled in and appropriately embellished. Perhaps it is. But it didn't make me more of an STV fan. Cheers, --Barak. -- Barak A. Pearlmutter http://barak.pearlmutter.net ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_single_transferable_vote ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
