[Lnc-business] commentary on Scottish STV
Alicia Mattson
alicia.mattson at lp.org
Tue Feb 26 22:32:01 EST 2019
The OpaVote feature to allow us to "View Ballots" clearly did not
anticipate an election with so many candidates. They don't fit the alloted
print space, so the ballots graphically overlap each other and become very
difficult to read.
-Alicia
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:57 PM Richard Longstreth via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> I, for one, appreciate the test run and even more appreciate the analysis
> by Mattson and Bishop-Henchman. Thank you to everyone involved in this and
> I am fine with rerunning results a different way or reciting all together.
>
> Richard Longstreth
> Region 1 Representative (AK, AZ, CO, KS, MT, NM, OR, HI, UT, WA, WY)
> Libertarian National Committee
> richard.longstreth at lp.org
> 931.538.9300
>
> Sent from my Mobile Device
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 18:12 Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> > Elizabeth this was a trial run to learn what we can and what we cannot
> > learn. If we are going to promote alternate voting systems, we should
> know
> > more what we are talking about and tests like these will build that
> > knowledge. I agree this one should be a do-over.
> >
> > I disagree that constant negativity encourages positive innovation. Our
> > Party culture unfortunately is like that - and when anyone dares to try
> to
> > change things they get heckled down. This is a culture problem to
> address.
> >
> > The same thing happens when we talk about new messaging tactics, new
> > campaigning tactics, etc. Shyer people will be dissuaded from suggesting
> > or trying.
> >
> > I am positive there are better voting systems for us to use as a body,
> and
> > this one has proven to not be it. But it gained us real experiential
> > knowledge.
> >
> > -Caryn Ann
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:04 PM Elizabeth Van Horn via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, we have people with 9 & 5 votes, being beaten-out by those with
> > > only 4 & 3 votes?
> > >
> > > Well, I've little to no faith in our results then, and this won't
> > > instill confidence in LNC procedures for our members.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Elizabeth Van Horn
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2019-02-26 18:52, Joe Bishop-Henchman via Lnc-business wrote:
> > > > I also just played the results Ms. Harlos sent out and came to the
> > > > same fascinating (to me, at least) realization. Ranked choice voting
> > > > works great if 800 people are choosing 5 or 9 spots; when it's 12 or
> > > > 13 people choosing 9 spots, there are odd results. Especially if each
> > > > voter is limited to nine choices, resulting in premature exhaustion
> of
> > > > several ballots.
> > > >
> > > > Here are the final results with number of distributed votes:
> > > > V. Sarwark - 2.00
> > > > P. Bilyeu - 2.00
> > > > Merced - 2.00
> > > > Dasbach - 2.00
> > > > Lyons - 1.91
> > > > Kelly - 1.00
> > > > Shade - 0.66
> > > > Recuero - 0.50
> > > > Myers - 0.50
> > > >
> > > > Forget majority - three of our final 9 were elected with less than
> one
> > > > vote after fully distributing everything. As the report indicated, 37
> > > > of the 40 rounds broke a tie by random, including on the final round.
> > > > With that many random choices, we could probably re-run the results
> > > > and get a different final three members each time. (One reading of
> > > > Scottish STV is that while it doesn't require a majority it still
> > > > requires hitting the threshold of 2, and only four people did so.)
> > > >
> > > > I compared it to approval voting (the usual method we have used for
> > > > filling vacancies), assuming (probably incorrectly) that everyone
> > > > would have voted for the same people:
> > > >
> > > > Valerie Sarwark 12
> > > > Paul Bilyeu 11
> > > > Alex Merced 11
> > > > Jeff Lyons 10
> > > > Steve Dasbach 9
> > > > Jennifer Moore 9 (not elected)
> > > > Omar Recuero 7
> > > > Fernando Davis 5 (not elected)
> > > > Johnny Walker 5 (not elected)
> > > >
> > > > Tyler Bargenquast 4
> > > > Brandon Bobbit 4
> > > > Bryan Bombardier 4
> > > > PJ Capelli 4
> > > > Jennifer Flower 4
> > > > Cecil Ince 4
> > > > Kenny Kelly 4 (elected)
> > > > Mayna Myers 4 (elected)
> > > > Kevin Warmhold 4
> > > > Marc Lazerow 3
> > > > Kevin Moore 3
> > > > James Olivi 3
> > > > Fransisco Olvera 3
> > > > Sean Parr 3
> > > > Ashely Shade 3 (elected)
> > > > Sharon Smith 3
> > > >
> > > > The starkest differences between the two voting methods are that J.
> > > > Moore appeared on 9 of our 13 ballots, on all but one in the top six,
> > > > but was not elected, while Shade (appearing on just three ballots as
> > > > 4th, 5th, and 7th choices), was elected by random coin flip ahead of
> > > > over a dozen other people who appeared on more ballots.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest if we do this again in the future:
> > > > * No limit on # of candidates to rank, to prevent premature ballot
> > > > exhaustion.
> > > > * In an extended ballot where we're all sharing results, those voting
> > > > last have an incredible information advantage for tactical voting.
> > > > Results should be secret until voting has closed.
> > > > * If not requiring a majority, establishing a floor for # of votes to
> > > > be elected. In the end, what we did was for all purposes no different
> > > > from randomly picking 9 LNC members to each pick one person for the
> > > > committee, except worse since three of those elected got less than 1
> > > > vote.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JBH
> > > >
> > > > ------------
> > > > Joe Bishop-Henchman
> > > > LNC Member (At-Large)
> > > > joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org
> > > > www.facebook.com/groups/189510455174837
> > > >
> > > > On 2019-02-22 04:32, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business wrote:
> > > >> I have a number of comments I wish to make about the Scottish STV
> > > >> voting
> > > >> system, but I don't have time to write it all up this evening. I
> will
> > > >> start with these comments and add more details to these thoughts
> > > >> later.
> > > >>
> > > >> It is one thing to read the theory and rules for a voting system on
> a
> > > >> webpage, but it's another thing to print out the paper ballots and
> > > >> enact
> > > >> the process yourself to see the effects of each step. Last night, I
> > > >> took
> > > >> the 7 ballots cast up to that point, printed them out on paper, and
> > > >> put
> > > >> them in piles on the floor to manually experience how it works.
> > > >>
> > > >> It didn't take long before my eyes got wide. Then a little later my
> > > >> jaw
> > > >> dropped as I realized more and more implications of the process.
> When
> > > >> I
> > > >> was done, I paced around the living room in a bit of a rant as I put
> > > >> my
> > > >> realizations into words.
> > > >>
> > > >> Clearly, this voting system was envisioned for situations in which
> the
> > > >> number of ballots being cast VASTLY outnumbers (by orders of
> > > >> magnitude)
> > > >> both the number of seats being filled and also the number of
> > > >> candidates.
> > > >>
> > > >> In our case, however, if everyone had voted it would have been 17
> > > >> ballots
> > > >> cast to choose from more than 40 candidates to fill 9 seats. I only
> > > >> saw
> > > >> ballots from 12 people on one election and 13 on the other, making
> the
> > > >> ratios even worse. This seems to be in the range of
> > > >> worst-case-scenario
> > > >> for this voting system.
> > > >>
> > > >> With these ratios, the process devolves into essentially a casino
> game
> > > >> of
> > > >> chance necessitating random candidate eliminations early in the
> > > >> process.
> > > >> After the first round of vote distributions, we might as well just
> > > >> tell the
> > > >> candidates to play Russian roulette...or for fewer dead bodies we
> > > >> could
> > > >> just draw names out of a hat.
> > > >>
> > > >> If I correctly understand the process, then it's mathematically
> > > >> impossible
> > > >> for the number of ballots cast in these two elections to elect more
> > > >> than 6
> > > >> candidates to each committee. Looking at the vote distribution,
> we'll
> > > >> elect at least 3 but no more than 6, depending on the outcome of
> some
> > > >> random selections, so we're in for re-balloting anyway.
> > > >>
> > > >> More specifics later...
> > > >>
> > > >> -Alicia
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > * In Liberty,*
> >
> > *Libertarian Party and Libertarian National Committee Secretary *-
> > Caryn.Ann.
> > Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org> or Secretary at LP.org.
> > *Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee* - LPedia at LP.org
> > Call me at 561.523.2250 and follow my public figure page at
> > facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/
> >
> > =========================================================================
> > Peaceful Commerce With All Nations * Non-interventionism * Re-Legalize
> All
> > Drugs * End Government Intrusion In The Bedroom * Repeal All Gun Laws *
> > Abolish All Taxation * Sound, Free-market Money * Abolish The Fed * End
> > Corporate & Individual Welfare * Abolish The IRS and Repeal the Income
> Tax
> > * Privatize Transportation Infrastructure * Free-market Emergency
> Services
> > * Open Migration * Transfer Government Schools To The Private Sector *
> > Eliminate Regulation *
> >
> > *VOTE LIBERTARIAN * 800-ELECT-US or http://www.LP.org <
> http://www.lp.org/
> > >*
> > =========================================================================
> >
>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list