[Lnc-business] voting method for current elections

[Alicia Mattson]

CAH>The information on all the methods was distributed at the September
meeting and at that meeting I explicitly stated it was in preparation for a
motion in December to test it in a few elections.

Distributing info and even doing a demo on several methods doesn't really
address the issue of which particular method would be proposed for the
December meeting, which was my point of confusion.

CAH> ...nothing in RCV means there is inherently a majority vote in
multi-seat races.

Using the link you provided:
https://www.opavote.com/methods/ranked-choice-voting
It doesn't even really describe a particular set of rules there, but in the
first bullet point it says, "RCV elects a candidate supported by a majority
of the voters. When there are more than two candidates running, it is
possible that the winner receives less than a majority."

I don't understand why the second sentence is there.  Having more than two
candidates running does not prevent the winner from receiving a majority.
The entire point is that you keep redistributing until someone does have a
majority.  Even at the end of that short article it says, "Ranked-choice
voting is also known under other names, such as majority preferential
voting, ..."  With ranked choice you can keep distributing until multiple
seats obtain a majority.  It may not be all the seats that you're trying to
elect, depending on how many the voters chose to rank.  That's why you need
precise rules on the method that will be used.

CAH>  I appreciate your aggravation in not knowing the distinctions but as
you noted, advance notice was given, and even more advance notice than you
noted was given since I started this process back in September.

That is misstating my position.  My aggravation is not a claim that
information was not available on the different voting types.  My
aggravation is that the first three versions of the Secretary's report said
RCV.  The switch to STV was in version 4 and at the meeting.  I didn't
notice the switch, and I think it should have been highlighted to make very
sure that we all noticed it because it's a significant difference.  Sending
lots of links about lots of methods doesn't say which version is being
proposed.  It's the motion which does that.

CAH> In light of this, it is my position for the Chair's consideration that
any point of order is untimely.

My point of order is not about the switch from RCV to STV, nor have I
alleged that information was not available on the differences.  My point of
order is because the ballot was distributed saying we will be using the
Coombs Ranked Choice Voting method, which does not match the motion adopted
by the LNC.

-Alicia



On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:13 AM Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> The information on all the methods was distributed at the September
> meeting and at that meeting I explicitly stated it was in preparation for a
> motion in December to test it in a few elections.
>
> *STV is a form of RCV* - in the information pamphlet handed out months
> earlier, and on the public OpaVote site (and in fact in the demonstration
> we did in September) - this has been the method used (in Sept there were
> several methods demo'd - each of them STV with different results on how
> ties are broken).  STV is an RCV method *used in multi-seat races and
> nothing in RCV means there is inherently a majority vote in multi-seat
> races.*  I invited anyone to review the method on the site, I
> demonstrated the method in September, and the characterization of how ties
> are broken is in fact accurate.
>
> We have always included NOTA on the ballots I have manually passed out as
> part of our custom.
>
> I appreciate your aggravation in not knowing the distinctions but as you
> noted, advance notice was given, and even more advance notice than you
> noted was given since I started this process back in September.
>
> with everyone's ballots, we can always run them through any other method
> if the body wishes to do so, but it is my position this was more than clear
> and if someone didn't avail themselves of the copious online information
> prior to voting that is unfortunate, but is not the fault of the LNC.  I
> delivered the written motion in advance.
>
> For the body's reference this is the information I previously distributed
> and that is easily available on the OpaVote site:
>
> https://www.opavote.com/methods/overview
> https://www.opavote.com/methods/ranked-choice-voting
> https://www.opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote
> https://www.opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote#scottish-stv
>
> *Further this motion was detailed in my written report in which the method
> was corrected identified as Scottish STV and further I provided this link
> way in advance for the committee to review:*
>
>
> *https://blog.opavote.com/2016/11/plain-english-explanation-of-scottish.html
> <https://blog.opavote.com/2016/11/plain-english-explanation-of-scottish.html>*
>
> In light of this, it is my position for the Chair's consideration that any
> point of order is untimely.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:45 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Am I the only one who is confused about this?
>>
>> As I am deciding how to vote on the two elections underway, I was looking
>> at the materials, and I've come to realize some details that I must point
>> out, and I need to raise a point of order.
>>
>> I was looking at the election method in the motion adopted in December, my
>> brain was saying, "Did we really choose single transferable voting for
>> this?"  It doesn't require a majority for election.  That is a factor that
>> I definitely would have wanted to comment about specifically at the
>> meeting, but I thought we had approved just a generic ranked choice voting
>> which does actually require a majority for election, rather than an STV
>> variant which does not.
>>
>> The minutes say that we voted on "ranked-choice voting (Scottish STV3)".
>> Well, it doesn't use the words "single transferable vote", though it
>> includes an acronym for single transferable vote in the variant type.  I
>> wondered how I didn't notice that detail.
>>
>> I believe the first time we saw this motion was in the Secretary's report,
>> sent to us 6 days prior to the meeting, indicated an intent to move that
>> the LNC adopt the following:
>>
>> "Move to appoint the members of the Convention Voting Process Committee
>> and
>> the Membership Support Committee via ranked-choice voting (Scottish RCV)
>> using the Opa-Vote site with a voting period of seven (7) days or until
>> all
>> votes are cast, whichever comes first. Alternates will note their choices
>> manually which will be input by the Secretary if the corresponding
>> regional
>> representative does not vote or expressly abstain."
>>
>> It says ranked-choice voting, then parenthetically "Scottish RCV".  Both
>> of
>> those tell me we would be voting on a more generic ranked choice voting
>> system, not a single transferable vote variant.  RCV, not STV.  I did read
>> and ponder this motion in advance with that particular wording.  That's
>> what I was expecting at the meeting.
>>
>> At the time of the meeting, when the motion was made, I was opening a copy
>> of the bylaws and did not aurally distinguish that the acronym which was
>> said by the mover was actually "STV" rather than the "RCV" we were given
>> in
>> writing.  It's a subtle distinction to the ear, and after reviewing the
>> recording of the meeting to confirm, it was not pointed out to us that
>> this
>> was something different than the written version of the motion we had been
>> sent.  We were only told that the Scottish STV element had to do with how
>> ties are broken.
>>
>> I do think that this subtle change, which has huge implications, should
>> have been much more clearly pointed out to us at the time.  I definitely
>> would have added to my debate comments to speak more strongly against it.
>> But I didn't HEAR the difference, so I thought we were voting on a
>> different system, so I didn't say it.  All I commented on was that not
>> really knowing all the distinctions, I wasn't ready to choose a method
>> yet.
>>
>> The wording spoken at the time was "STV", but not "STV3" which is what the
>> minutes say.  I have not found on the OpaVote site what the distinction is
>> between those, though the draft minutes should be corrected to reflect the
>> motion that was actually made without the "3".
>>
>> Then, when the notice of the email ballot was sent to us, we were told
>> that, "This is a ranked choice election using the Coombs Ranked Choice
>> Voting method."  The OpaVote site says the Coombs method is a variant of
>> IRV with a distinction about choosing which candidate is eliminated from
>> one round to the next, and that Scottish STV is something different.
>>
>> So besides being aggravated that we were not clearly warned that the tiny
>> change in the motion was a very different method than what was sent to us
>> in advance, I must raise a point of order to ask whether the method being
>> used is even the same as what the LNC voted for.
>>
>> Was I the only one who missed the change from RCV to STV?  What did we
>> think we were voting on, what did we actually agree to, and is this
>> OpaVote
>> configuration the same thing as that?
>>
>> Also, NOTA was not nominated by anyone, yet there it is on our ballot.
>> Though our bylaws allow for NOTA votes in elections at convention, and
>> spell out very clearly how it is handled, we have no existing rules for
>> how
>> NOTA is handled in an election for an LNC committee, and I suspect that
>> the
>> software has nothing particular to handle the NOTA concept and will just
>> treat it as the name of a human candidate.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>