Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Dave Neary wrote: >> >> A small correction to explain exactly how random transfers work: > > Well, actually, I just found out from the OpenSTV guys, that how Filippo > said is how they work. Oh, nice, I had a feeling it was slightly more complicated. Glad to hear it's not :) > In count 1, Vincent has 60 votes, they're shoved into a stack. The top 33 > votes from the stack get redistributed in count 2. No randomness at all, no > shuffling, and we don't look at the distribution of the 2nd preferences to > calculate who gets what. In my opinion the issue is not the randomness itself. After all if you count the ballots always in the same order (the one they arrived) the process is somewhat deterministic and it gives always the same result. The problem is with assuming a relatively small sample to be representative of all the electors. With random transfer a significant number of ballots only gets counted for their first preference. As Shaun said, there is a good chance that the sample you take, not being shuffled, could have a non trivial correlation making the results even more unfair. I believe the only reason random transfer exists is to be able to count ballots by hand but if you're using a software to compute results fractional transfer is clearly to be preferred. Cheers, Filippo ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > Tobias Mueller wrote: >> >> These results can be challenged by sending an e-mail to >> electi...@gnome.org. The challenges have to be sent before Tuesday, >> June 30, 2009, 23:59 UTC. Please note that these results should not >> be considered final until any such challenges have been resolved. > > Challenge! > > You just announced the results based on first-past-the-post, when the > elections were to be run using preferential voting, with single transferable > vote and fractional surplus transfer. > > Srinivasa and Diego get elected in that system instead of Jorge. Dear Foundation Members, Dear Dave, We have received your challenge and accepted it as an issue. We have used the counting method "Random Transfer STV with Droop-Static-Whole threshold" which might produce different results if you change the order of the ballots. Although we ran the counting several times to check whether it produces different results, we did not see any: We have not changed the order of the ballots, or, to be more precise, the voting software did not change the order and thus the results were perfectly reproducible for all of us. We do, however, accept the fact that if you counted manually, you could gather a different result. This is the reason why we decided to use the deterministic "Fractional Transfer STV". Thus we will not declare the preliminary result announced on 2009-06-24 as valid. Instead, we will announce new preliminary results using Fractional STV soon, if there are no further objections. These results can then be challenged. As you stated that you wanted to have that method used, we assume that this resolves your challenge. Is that correct? We'd like to thank you for the challenge. At your service, The GNOME Foundation Membership and Elections Committee ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 10:58 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Stormy Peters wrote: >> > I too think the election committee should just decide. >> > >> > (From board discussions, I'm pretty confident they wanted to do it >> > however Maemo does it, but at this point I think the election committee >> > should decide.) >> >> I'd replace "decide" with "clarify" here - it's clear there was an >> intention, and now we're in something of a niche situation, where we >> just need a clarification from the committee what method they intended >> to use - then we just count with that. >> > > I disagree, afaik we just directly re-used the code received from > maemo.org through you (iirc). Which in your March elections used this > same system: > http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2009-March/002139.html > > Indeed you had a discussion after the results, although I haven't > checked if you later did some change regarding the results. > > IMVHO what happened was that we just thought "preferential voting" and > not went into the details, at the Board level and highly likely at the > MC level. I wouldn't say there was specific blame or ill intention in > any of the people involved (you, mc, board). For what it is worth, I think I assumed STV, but I also think that you're right that it was never formally discussed at board level, and certainly was not communicated to the membership committee. This is purely my fault, since I was the one pushing for it at the board level. :( Luis P.S. Sorry I've been AWOL, but bar exam study has been very distracting, and I did not realize until today that this thread was significant beyond the first email. For what it is worth, from a quick skim of the thread, I think I mostly just agree with Dave N.'s positions. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 10:58 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Stormy Peters wrote: > > I too think the election committee should just decide. > > > > (From board discussions, I'm pretty confident they wanted to do it > > however Maemo does it, but at this point I think the election committee > > should decide.) > > I'd replace "decide" with "clarify" here - it's clear there was an > intention, and now we're in something of a niche situation, where we > just need a clarification from the committee what method they intended > to use - then we just count with that. > I disagree, afaik we just directly re-used the code received from maemo.org through you (iirc). Which in your March elections used this same system: http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2009-March/002139.html Indeed you had a discussion after the results, although I haven't checked if you later did some change regarding the results. IMVHO what happened was that we just thought "preferential voting" and not went into the details, at the Board level and highly likely at the MC level. I wouldn't say there was specific blame or ill intention in any of the people involved (you, mc, board). Let's stick to the process and wait for the MC to come up with a judgement over the challenge. Meanwhile we can keep discussing ideas for enhancing the election system/process/method. greetings ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Stormy Peters wrote: > >> I too think the election committee should just decide. >> >> (From board discussions, I'm pretty confident they wanted to do it however >> Maemo does it, but at this point I think the election committee should >> decide.) >> > > I'd replace "decide" with "clarify" here - it's clear there was an > intention, and now we're in something of a niche situation, where we just > need a clarification from the committee what method they intended to use - > then we just count with that. > > I prefer fractional transfer because its results are deterministic, they > will not be different if you run the election 10 different times. That isn't > true of random transfer (which is a real world compromise to make > hand-counting big elections feasible). But if that's not what the election > committee intended, then so be it, we'll count it the other way, organise a > hand check, and be done with it. > > Having counted the election by hand yesterday, I can tell you that the hand > count will come down to a 1 or 2 vote difference between Sri and Jorge for > the last seat, and Vincent, Behdad, German, Brian and Diego will be elected. > I would say then with such a small sampling size where randomness can change results (it is like saying, lets flip a coin to see if Sri or Jorge gets elected) we should go with fractional transfer going forward. I suspect the last few candidates will always end up in this situation. However in this election, unless you can document that this was indeed the committee's intent you need to at least go back to the two candidates in question and get their opinions. The committee stating it was their intent after the fact is not good enough. The committee stating they wanted to do it how maemo did it without actually looking how maemo did it is an even deeper issue. If the committee is not willing to acknowledge an issue and simply says it isn't worth the trouble to either document their intent or find another equitable way to resolve who gets the last seat then I have deep reservations about using the STV voting method in future elections. -- John ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 19:22 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > 2009/6/26 Dave Neary : > > Hi, > > > > Dave Neary wrote: > >> > >> A small correction to explain exactly how random transfers work: > > > > Well, actually, I just found out from the OpenSTV guys, that how Filippo > > said is how they work. > > > > In count 1, Vincent has 60 votes, they're shoved into a stack. The top 33 > > votes from the stack get redistributed in count 2. No randomness at all, no > > shuffling, and we don't look at the distribution of the 2nd preferences to > > calculate who gets what. > > If I understand the system correctly, the randomness does exist - the > outcome is dependent on the order in which ballots are cast (or > counted), which can be thought of as a random process. Is this > correct? I could easily conceive of scenarios in which the order of votes received has a non-negligible correlation to voter preference. Time zones, work schedules, ability of a candidate to galvanize his supporters to vote early, etc. I'm not saying there is a correlation. I'm just saying I'm very distrustful of mere guesses that there is not. -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
2009/6/26 Dave Neary : > Hi, > > Dave Neary wrote: >> >> A small correction to explain exactly how random transfers work: > > Well, actually, I just found out from the OpenSTV guys, that how Filippo > said is how they work. > > In count 1, Vincent has 60 votes, they're shoved into a stack. The top 33 > votes from the stack get redistributed in count 2. No randomness at all, no > shuffling, and we don't look at the distribution of the 2nd preferences to > calculate who gets what. If I understand the system correctly, the randomness does exist - the outcome is dependent on the order in which ballots are cast (or counted), which can be thought of as a random process. Is this correct? Cheers, -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
Hi, Dave Neary wrote: A small correction to explain exactly how random transfers work: Well, actually, I just found out from the OpenSTV guys, that how Filippo said is how they work. In count 1, Vincent has 60 votes, they're shoved into a stack. The top 33 votes from the stack get redistributed in count 2. No randomness at all, no shuffling, and we don't look at the distribution of the 2nd preferences to calculate who gets what. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
Hi, A small correction to explain exactly how random transfers work: Filippo Argiolas wrote: - with Random Transfer, 20 ballots are picked randomly (assuming those 60 votes are already random you can just pick last 20 received, first 20, or more complex randomizing methods). The thing is that this way you completely lose the second order preference of the remaining 40 ballots and assume the 20 ones you randomly picked are a representative enough sample. It's slightly more complicated than this. With random transfer what you do is this: Count all of the second preferences corresponding to Vincent's first preferences (or, in the case where Behdad is 2nd preference, 3rd preferences since Behdad is elected, and thus no longer in the race): Brian: 13 Diego: 3 German: 7 Hubert: 2 Jorge: 0 Lucas: 26 Og: 3 Srini: 6 Non-transferable: 0 (non-transferable votes are those where no candidate with lower preferences is still in the race - someone votes Vincent 1, Behdad 2 and no-one else, for example). Now, you calculate how many of these votes you transfer proportional to the size of the stack (we're transfering 33 of 60 votes, multiply by 33/60 and round up or down to get to 33 votes: Brian: +7 (rounded down from 7.15) Diego: +2 (rounded up from 1.65) German: +4 (rounded up from 3.85) Hubert: +1 (rounded down from 1.1) Jorge: +0 Lucas: +14 (rounded down from 14.3) Og: +2 (rounded up from 1.65) Srini: +3 (rounded down from 3.3) Now, here's where random transfer comes in. We will transfer 14 of Lucas's 26 2nd preferences at random. In that case, there's no issue, because Lucas get up to 27 votes, is elected and has no surplus to redistribute. Where it becomes an issue is when we transfer 7 of Brian's 13 preferences, bringing him to 26, and when we redistribute Behdad's surplus, we then redistribute 6 of 12 preferences, bringing him to 32 votes, with a 5 vote surplus to distribute. That's where it gets hairy, because the distribution of that surplus will depend on which ballots got transferred to Brian. It gets even hairier in the 5th count, which is the elimination of Og. At that stage, Og's gotten up to 10 votes after distributing Brian, Behdad and Vincent's preferences. Of those 10 votes, 6 come from transfers - 2 (of 4 preferences) from Vincent, 3 (of 6 preferences) from Behdad, 1 (of 7 preferences) from Brian. So now to see who those votes transfer to, there are 6 votes chosen at random from a pool of 17 votes, which theoretically will be representative of the people like next best after Og, but maybe not so much also. After that, we have the redistribution of votes for Hub, and again the issue presents itself - in the vote I ran, Hub ended up with 14 votes after count 5, including 7 first preferences, 1 transfer from Vuntz, 4 from Behdad, 1 from Brian, 1 from Og - and of the 7 transfers, they've been chosen at random from a pool of 2, 7, 5, and 1 respectively. At which case, we are down to 2 candidates, and the result might depend on which ballots were transferred from various candidates beforehand to see whether Sri ends up on 18, 19 or 20 votes, and whether Jorge ends up on 18 or 19 votes. In all sitautions, the last seat is decided by a margin of 1 or 2 votes. - with Fractional Transfer you don't transfer a sample but *all* the 60 ballots with a fractional weight that makes them sum up to the surplus (20 in the example). This way you're caring about all preferences of all ballots, giving a clearly fairer representation of the electors' desires. The only downside of this method it that it is more complex, to apply not to understand (i.e. you cannot count ballots by hand), but given that we're already using a software to count the ballots I really don't see the point. Exactly. In this specific case, we don't round the numbers & transfer actual ballots, we transfer each preference from Vuntz to Brian (say) with a weight of 33/60, resulting in Brian's count going to 26.15 in the second count, and when those votes get transfered later, they'll get transferred at a weight (33/60)*(5/32) or whatever. I don't speak and understand english very well but from what I understood about the meaning of "close election" ours certainly is, we're electing 7 candidates over 10 with 211 ballots, there is no need to do the math to understand that the order of the ballots can change the results. Random transfer might work well when you have big numbers but can easily be unfair in a little election like this. PS. In case it wasn't clear, this is a +1 to Dave's challenge :-P Thanks Filippo! Indeed, this is a close election, and the result might change depending on the transfers. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results
Hi, Stormy Peters wrote: I too think the election committee should just decide. (From board discussions, I'm pretty confident they wanted to do it however Maemo does it, but at this point I think the election committee should decide.) I'd replace "decide" with "clarify" here - it's clear there was an intention, and now we're in something of a niche situation, where we just need a clarification from the committee what method they intended to use - then we just count with that. I prefer fractional transfer because its results are deterministic, they will not be different if you run the election 10 different times. That isn't true of random transfer (which is a real world compromise to make hand-counting big elections feasible). But if that's not what the election committee intended, then so be it, we'll count it the other way, organise a hand check, and be done with it. Having counted the election by hand yesterday, I can tell you that the hand count will come down to a 1 or 2 vote difference between Sri and Jorge for the last seat, and Vincent, Behdad, German, Brian and Diego will be elected. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
