Is it safe for people not interested in voting systems to ignore the rest of this thread? I hope that if there's an update on the voting period or specifics on how to vote (or what the choices are) these will be posted to a new thread. I want to mute this one.
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 12:24 AM Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Tim] > >> ... when there _was_ a Condorcet winner, the results page said > >> > >> (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices) > >> > >> next to the winning candidate. Given that the results page also gives > >> a color-coded matrix of pairwise preference counts, verifying this is > >> trivial by eyeball ... if and only if all the cells in the top row are > >> colored green ... > > [Donald] > > You’re right. I simulated an election without a Condorcet winner, but > > where the voting mechanisms would otherwise select a winner (just > > using the example from the Schulze Wikipedia page), it says > > "(Not defeated in any contest vs. another choice)”, instead. > > Errrrrrrr ... I wonder why?! I had seen that in one of the public > polls, but in that case the winner's row was all green except for a > single yellow square. which meant the winner _tied_ with another in a > one-on-one contest. So "not defeated" was correct. But here: > > > An example can be found at: > > > https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?num_winners=1&id=E_4191dbfb94efecb6&algorithm=beatpath > . > > there's a red square in the winner's (top) row: the winner (E) > _lost_, 24 to 21, to #3 (C). It's just not true that E wasn't > defeated in any one-on-one contest. > > Oh well. Best to ignore the words and look at the colors instead :-) > > > > Just for kicks I added enough ballots so that there would be a Condorcet > > winner, and I verified that the above is true, and an example can be > found at > > > https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?num_winners=1&id=E_31f80ce0986ce98c&algorithm=beatpath > . > > Yup - and top row all green. > > > > So that means if we go with it, we can let CIVS tally for us and we’ll > just > > look for a Condorcet winner instead of another kind of winner. > > Yes, it will tell us instantly (when the election ends) whether > there's a Condorcet winner, and regardless of which method's radio > button happens to be selected. > > > Of course since all of the anonymized ballots are public, people are > free to > > compute it themselves as well. > > And I bet someone will. I'm too old ;-) > > >> ... > >> """ > >> The election supervisor can determine whether a voter has voted only > >> with the permission of the voter and only after the election has > >> ended. > >> “"" > > > Maybe they mean that if you contact them they can look that information > > up? I’m looking and I don’t see any UI that lets me do that, so either > > it’s not implemented, it was removed, I’m missing it, or it requires > > contacting them. > > Can't help, beyond noting that the election supervisor sure doesn't > appear to have any mechanical way to prove a voter gives permission - > and since their side threw away voters' email addresses, they have no > way to contact voters to ask either. > > They do save crypto hashes of email addresses, so perhaps if you asked > them, they could give you a magic string you could in turn give to a > voter who in turn could send that string back to them from the same > email address they used to vote. Or something ;-) > > > ... > > It can also optionally let people pick no opinion, though I’m not sure > of the utility > > of that. It basically means, as I understand it, that in any pairwise > contest that > > includes a option you had no opinion on, your ballot would just not be > included. > > In effect, I bet that's all there is to it. If there are C > candidates, all these methods start by building a CxC matrix M such > that M[i, j] counts the number of ballots that ranked candidate i > higher than candidate j. > > If a full set of distinct rankings is required, then for every ballot, > exactly one of M[i, j] and M[j,i] will be incremented for every i != j > pair. > > If i != j are ranked the same on some ballot, then neither M[i, j] nor > M[j, i] will be incremented for that ballot. > > If i is missing on some ballot, then M[i, j] and M[j, i] will be left > alone for all j for that ballot. > > > The FAQ on this says: > > > > > > What does “no opinion” mean? It means you are providing no information > about > > how this choice ranks with respect to the other choices. For example, if > you give > > one choice the rank 1, and give all other choices the rank “no opinion”, > your > > ballot becomes useless because it doesn't express any preferences. > > Voters often pick “no opinion” when what they mean is that they don't > like the choice > > In that case they should rank it near the bottom instead. > > > or that they don't have any information about it. > > Which is surely what it's _intended_ to be used for! "No opinion", in > which case the ballot doesn't pretend the missing choice is either > better or worse than any other choice. You're leaving its fate > entirely to people who _do_ have an opinion then. > > > In these situations, it is often better to give the choice a low rank > rather than > > to select “no opinion”. A good reason for a voter to give a choice the > rank > > “no opinion” is because the voter isn't supposed to express an opinion > > about that choice. > > Heh - who runs a vote where voters aren't "supposed" to express their > opinions? Or is this site hosted in the DPRK? ;-) > > > > It sounds to me like no opinion is a bit of a footgun here, so I think > it makes > > sense not to allow it (probably the case of where you don’t have an > opinion, > > you’re better off just ranking it last like the FAQ suggests). > > I'd disallow it, but because it's likely to be misunderstood. The > _usual_ treatment of missing rankings in a Condorcet scheme is that > they're shorthand for saying "least favored". For example, in a > 17-person primary, you just rank your 3 favorites, and it's understood > that the other 14 are all tied for last place in your eyes. > > That's _very_ different from treating them as "no opinion". In the > primary, you're recording 3 losses for each of the missing 14, and you > wholly _intend_ to give them those losses. > > > ... > > Yea. And my suggestion of Ernest is that well, an evil Ernest can > already fuck > > shit up for the Python community way beyond trying to change how we make > > decisions about PEPs and such (and he’s not a core dev, so he doesn’t > have > > a horse in this race). Although I don’t really care who runs it, I think > anyone > > here is going to be honest about it. > > > > I can say as a supervisor you also can’t see how people have voted at > all until > > after the voting ends. You can only see how many people voted. This > makes it > > harder to meaningfully influence the election because you won’t be able > to > > make targeted, strategic puppet votes without either doing it blindly or > flooding > > the votes to a degree that it would be obvious. > > No problem here with any of that. Potential dishonesty in PythonLand > is far less a problem than that we fail to get anything done fretting > about proving how nothing could possibly be manipulated. In fact, we > could almost certainly trust any one of the competing PEP's authors to > tally the votes, destroy the ballots, and just tell us who won :--) > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
