Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting
for ARIN Elections (William Herrin)
2. Re: Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting
for ARIN Elections (Richard Laager)
3. Re: Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting
for ARIN Elections (William Herrin)
4. Re: Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting
for ARIN Elections (Adam Thompson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 11:55:56 -0800
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single
Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGVrgtU6r2BHXBeU5QeJ97w7kBfNRzOF=c7y-+xqayx...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:38 AM ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
> One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to replace
> the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system with single
> transferrable voting (STV), also known as ranked-choice voting. STV would
> provide the ability for the community to realize the following primary
> benefits:
>
> ? Greater voting choice. Voters rank candidates in order of preference;
> ? A more proportional result. Successful candidates more broadly represent
> voter sentiment versus a single issue. There is better representation of
> member minority views;
> ? No wasted votes. Fewer votes are cast for losing candidates or needlessly
> cast for run-away winners;
> ? Designed for multiple winners; and
> ? Reduced opportunities for tactical voting.
>
> STV has some disadvantages:
>
> ? It is possible for a single candidate to win without crossing the winning
> threshold;
> ? The process is more complicated to understand and implement than FPTP; and
> ? In some cases, ballots that don't rank all candidates may be discarded.
Though unlikely, it is mathematically possible for the folks who
receive the most first-round votes to all lose the election while the
second-to-last candidates win. It's also possible for the candidate
ranked LAST by a majority of voters to win election.
Suppose you have five candidates for two positions. The votes are:
30% 1, 3, 2, 5, 4
20% 3, 1, 2, 5, 4
19% 4, 1, 2, 5, 3
10.5% 2, 3, 1, 5, 4
10.5% 2, 4, 1, 5, 3
5% 5, 4, 1, 2, 3
5% 5, 3, 1, 2, 4
In the first pass, one receives 30%, two receives 21%, three receives
20%, four receives 19% and five receives 10%. Candidate five is
eliminated.
5% of candidate 5's second choice was candidate 4. The other half was
candidate 3.
In the second pass, one has 30%, two has 21%, three has 25% and four
has 24%. Candidate two is eliminated.
Candidate 2's second choices were again split half and half between
candidates 3 and 4.
In the third pass, one has 30%, three has 35.5% and four has 34.5%.
Now the peculiarity of STV versus ordinary ranked choice voting comes
into play. Candidate 3 has exceeded the election threshold so his
"excess" votes are distributed to the other candidates. Let's say the
excess is 1%. The next choice for everybody now in the candidate 3
bucket is candidate 1, so all of that excess goes to candidate 1.
In the final pass, one has 31%, three has 34.5% and four has 34.5%.
Candidates 3 (originally 20%) and 4 (originally 19%) are elected,
between them having received less than half the first-round vote. Note
that elected candidate 4 was ranked LAST by a majority 65.5% of the
voters.
FPTP uses the same numbers above except voters cast a vote for both of
their first two picks, that is:
30% 1, 3
20% 3, 1
19% 4, 1
10.5% 2, 3
10.5% 2, 4
5% 5, 4
5% 5, 3
This results in:
69% 1 (elected)
65.5% 3 (elected)
34.5% 4
21% 2
10% 5
A simple plurality vote would use only the first choices:
30% 1
20% 3
19% 4
10.5% 2
10.5% 2
5% 5
5% 5
For a total of 30% 1, 21% 2, 20% 3, 19% 4 and 10% 5 electing
candidates 1 and 2 who between them achieve a majority of the votes.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
[email protected]
https://bill.herrin.us/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 14:18:48 -0600
From: Richard Laager <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single
Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 1/6/22 1:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:38 AM ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to replace
>> the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system with single
>> transferrable voting (STV), also known as ranked-choice voting.
Yes, please. FPTP is the worst.
> or needlessly cast for run-away winners;
Does this imply an STV variant where surplus votes are transferred, as
discussed below?
> In the third pass, one has 30%, three has 35.5% and four has 34.5%.
> Now the peculiarity of STV versus ordinary ranked choice voting comes
> into play. Candidate 3 has exceeded the election threshold
Wikipedia says that once someone reaches the quota (which I think is
Bill's "election threshold"), they are declared elected. In a two-seat
election, I think that threshold would be 33.3% (plus one vote), so
candidates three and four have crossed it. They are both elected, and
since both seats are filled, the process stops. (Your example arrived at
the same result, though.)
It should only be necessary to distribute excess/surplus votes if only
one candidate had passed the threshold and there were still more
candidates than seats.
> so his
> "excess" votes are distributed to the other candidates.
According to Wikipedia, only some definitions of STV transfer
excess/surplus votes. And there are different ways to transfer the
surplus votes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Transfers_of_surplus_votes
I don't have strong feelings about those details. But whatever ARIN is
adopting does need to be clearly specified somewhere.
--
Richard
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:25:01 -0800
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: Richard Laager <[email protected]>
Cc: "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single
Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGV=E63ardG8UiOWf8RPmJLm92=mf62dfh0txoffmtc...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:18 PM Richard Laager <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does this imply an STV variant where surplus votes are transferred, as
> discussed below?
>
> On 1/6/22 1:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > In the third pass, one has 30%, three has 35.5% and four has 34.5%.
> > Now the peculiarity of STV versus ordinary ranked choice voting comes
> > into play. Candidate 3 has exceeded the election threshold
>
> Wikipedia says that once someone reaches the quota (which I think is
> Bill's "election threshold"), they are declared elected. In a two-seat
> election, I think that threshold would be 33.3% (plus one vote), so
> candidates three and four have crossed it. They are both elected, and
> since both seats are filled, the process stops. (Your example arrived at
> the same result, though.)
The surplus vote thing is super fuzzy to me so I could easily have
gotten that part wrong in my example.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
[email protected]
https://bill.herrin.us/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 03:45:55 +0000
From: Adam Thompson <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>, Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single
Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections
Message-ID:
<yqxpr01mb6326e808f04e09100ef98ae19b...@yqxpr01mb6326.canprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
John (et al.), the (admittedly so far very small) consensus we've seen today is
"Hell, Yeah! Let's change the voting model", but I think everyone who spoke up
today had approximately the same concern: at least _something_ a little more
explicit needs to be put into the bylaws, or in a supporting document the
bylaws _explicitly_ reference.
After a day's thought on this, although I very much want to get rid of FPTP
everywhere I can - I think it's fundamentally broken - I am absolutely NOT OK
with supporting the changes *as currently written*. I wasn't really OK with it
earlier, but the longer I think about it and the more times I review it, the
more opposed I am.
I feel that it reduces protections and opens up new possibilities for malicious
actors to (somehow) subvert the intent in the future, without putting even the
most trivial of protections, assurances, whatever you want to call them, back
in to either the Articles or the Bylaws.
I already suggested one tiny change that would make me happy (referencing the
voting model in the Bylaws); I won't attempt to condense everyone else's
opinion on what needs to change into a single paragraph.
Great idea, not so hot implementation IMO. PLEASE revisit the changes and
re-propose, I don't want this change in voting model to evaporate.
-Adam
Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
MERLIN
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
[email protected]
www.merlin.mb.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-consult <[email protected]> On Behalf Of John
> Curran
> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 1:30 PM
> To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single
> Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections
>
>
> > On 6 Jan 2022, at 11:01 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that the best thing would be for the bylaws to call out a separate
> document, incorporated by reference
> > which defines the STV process and that the bylaws should simply specify
> that voting shall be conducted
> > by a Single Transferrable Vote process as documented at <X> location.
> >
> > That allows appropriate documentation control over the process without
> the weight of a full bylaw amendment.
>
> Some additional context on the proposed changes may help here ?
>
> At present ARIN elections are conducted per the "ARIN Election Processes?
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes/> which
> are adopted by the Board and published on the ARIN website as required by
> the ARIN Bylaws. Ideally, ARIN would have been able to move to a Single-
> Transferrable-Vote (STV) election process by simply adopting a revised set
> of ARIN Election Processes specifying such, but alas the Virginia Non-stock
> Corporation Act requires that "directors be elected by majority of votes
> cast" unless otherwise specified in the Articles of Incorporation.
>
> The proposed change to the Articles of Incorporation would allow the
> Bylaws to provide for election in a manner other than ?majority of votes
> cast? ? such as an updated set of ARIN Election Processes that specify STV.
> We did not put the exact election system in the proposed Bylaws change (as
> the Bylaws are quite sparse on election processes with these instead being
> contained in the ARIN Election Processes) and continuing that approach
> would allow for any necessary refinement of the particulars of the election
> process without having to further revise the bylaws.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN
> Member Services
> Help Desk at [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
------------------------------
End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 87, Issue 4
*******************************************
