alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (11/29/89)
After all the recent STV clarifications, I have seen people start to complain again about voting systems being too complex. To address this, let me pull together everything about MAUVE and WEIP in one place. Note that this is really it. Everything else I have written about them boils down to examples and theoretical justifications. Most of the responses I have seen are the same or debates about the details. MAUVE: Multiple Authentication, Universal Voting and Elimination 1) During the discussion period, people propose names for the new group. 2) The proposer lists all proposed names in the Call for Votes. 3) The moderator of news.newgroups may add any names before posting the Call. 4) Each voter can vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN (same as no vote) for each name. 5) The votes are summed, any name without 100 more YES than NO votes or with more than 1/3 of the votes NO is eliminated. 6) The remaining name with the largest YES-NO vote margin wins. Adjudication method 1: All voters fill out a form with the names listed and follow each name with YES, NO, or ABSTAIN. Anything else is equivalent to an ABSTAIN. Adjudication method 2: The proposer numbers each name. Voters fill the subject field of their vote in with YES <numbers> NO <numbers>. Any number not in YES or NO is an ABSTAIN. Auditing: Name1 Name2 Name3 ... YES Votes: <num> <num> <num> ... NO Votes: <num> <num> <num> ... <user-id> <user-name> <Y/N> <Y/N> <Y/N> ... WEIP: Weighted Polling 1) During the discussion period, people propose names for the new group. 2) The proposer lists all proposed names in the Call for Votes. 3) The moderator of news.newgroups may add any names before posting the Call. 4) Each voter votes for each name with an integer from 0 to 10 where 0 is strongest disapproval and 10 is strongest support. Voters can ABSTAIN from voting for any name. 5) Any name with less than 100 votes is eliminated. The votes are then averaged, any name with less than a 7.0 average is eliminated. 6) The remaining name with the largest average vote wins. Adjudication method 1: All voters fill out a form with the names listed and follow each name with the numerical vote. Anything else is equivalent to an ABSTAIN. Adjudication method 2: The proposer letters each name. Voters fill the subject field of their vote in with <letter><vote> <letter><vote> ... Auditing: Name1 Name2 Name3 ... Average Vote: <avg> <avg> <avg> ... Number of Votes: <num> <num> <num> ... <user-id> <user-name> <vote> <vote> <vote> ... I think these are complete descriptions. The description of the voting only takes 7-9 lines, and each fits on a single screen even with descriptions of multiple vote counting methods and a demonstration of the final published audit for the vote. I have changed the details slightly to conform with net.debate. In particular, I have eliminated write-in votes from MAUVE and specified the elimination criteria for WEIP - but these are basically the same proposals from before. See earlier postings for rationalizations, justifications, examples, and comparisons with STV. -- --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien