Open Stack

We have seen good results from the voter information campaigns from the 1st year to the 2nd year and I feel that the trend will continue.

There is a need to make the electorate sensitive to their responsibilities but also to not raise the bar too high in terms of effort to vote (thus losing some highly involved, but busy, people).

Tim


From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jimjag at gmail.com]
Sent: 15 October 2013 20:41
To: Tim Bell
Cc: Simon Anderson; elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [Elections-committee] Draft STV Briefing Paper for Committee Review

That is right, but in that case the user has basically "thrown away" their vote. If their candidate was already going to win, then their vote is moot; Instead, what should be focused on is voter education. It results in a somewhat different mind-set which most voters feel *more* liberated about...

You could require that they submit at least the number of votes that correspond to the number of open slots; but that's an implementation issue.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch<mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch>> wrote:

Jim,

Thus, my understanding of both Condorcet and STV is that if we do not require a complete ranking, we could up with concerns that the "bullet" scenario could occur (i.e. single candidate votes) despite the change of algorithm.

If we require voting for ALL candidates, we could be asking 10K+ people to order 20+ people which may risk some random voting patterns to complete the form.

Tim



From: Jim Jagi-elski [mailto:jimjag at gmail.com<mailto:jimjag at gmail.com>]
Sent: 15 October 2013 18:56
To: Tim Bell
Cc: Simon Anderson; elections-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:elections-committee at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Elections-committee] Draft STV Briefing Paper for Committee Review

All of the STV systems the ASF looked at and used (and developed) do not require ranking all candidates when casting a vote. Nor is it a requirement of STV itself.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch<mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch>> wrote:

Simon,

Could you clarify whether there is an STV system which does not require ranking all candidates (45 in the last round) and would require at least N votes (to ensure reasonable consideration) but does not require all candidates to be ranked ?

This would avoid the "bullet vote" mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote, require a reasonable level of education by the electorate (i.e. not just choose the nearest affiliation but also allow a vote to be cast in a reasonable time by ranking your top M candidates where M > N) ?

Tim


From: Simon Anderson [mailto:simon at dreamhost.com<mailto:simon at dreamhost.com>]
Sent: 15 October 2013 10:16
To: elections-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:elections-committee at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [Elections-committee] Draft STV Briefing Paper for Committee Review

I've attached the draft briefing paper I've prepared summarizing the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, and its benefits and drawbacks for consideration by the Board at the meeting on October 17.
Look forward to discussing and refining it with you all today, on and after the election committee call.

Best,
Simon Anderson
CEO, DreamHost

_______________________________________________
Elections-committee mailing list
Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131015/6df9ec6d/attachment.html>