sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/16/89)
Hi All,
I would like to propose a change to the voting guidelines currently being
used in the group creation process. As we have seen several times, chosing
the name for a proposed group can be difficult. The following procedure,
which I first proposed in <14035.2530882d@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, will help
alleviate naming problems in the group creation process. I propose that we
amend the group creation guidelines as follows.
===================== START OF PROPOSED REVISIONS =========================
The Vote
1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new
group is really desired, a charter is agreed upon, and it has been
determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will
moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups
and any other groups or mailing lists that the original call for
discussion might have been posted to. ... [no further changes.]
2) [no changes]
3) [no changes]
4) [no changes]
5) Votes should be cast for or against any name for the proposed group that the
voter deems appropriate. Multiple votes from the same voter are allowed as
as long each vote is for a unique name for the group. Acceptable votes
will consist of a newsgroup name and an indication of whether or not the
voter is for or against that particular name. Newsgroup names may use the
character "*" as a wildcard to indicate portions of the name which do not
matter to the voter. For example, "* YES" would indicate that the voter
favors creation of the group no matter what the name. Unambiguous statements
of "wildcard" group names are allowed, for example, "any group in the sci
hierarchy should be created" would be the same as "sci.* yes."
6) [no changes]
7) Counting the votes may be done as follows. First, translate all
unambiguous votes to a format like:
group.name_or_wildcard yes_or_no voter_name <voter.address>
Then sort the list by group name, eliminating any duplicates.
Finally, construct a table of all specific group names in the vote list.
Following the group name in this table, put the number of specific votes
for and against that name, counting any matching wildcards. For example:
group.name1 yes voter1 <voter1.address>
group.* yes voter2 <voter2.address>
* no voter3 <voter3.address>
would count as 2 YES and 1 NO votes for group.name1. Wildcard votes that
include other names specified by the *same* voter, for example:
group.* yes voter <voter.address>
group.name yes voter <voter.address>
should be considered as duplicates and not counted as multiple votes for
group.name. The example:
group.* yes voter <address>
group.name1 no voter <address>
is not ambiguous, and would count as a NO vote for group.name1, and as
a YES vote for any other group.* possibility.
The final table of votes will be something like:
YES NO
group.name1 number_of_yes_votes number_of_no_votes.
group.name2 number_of_yes_votes number_of_no_votes.
...
This table will be used to decide whether or not the group should be
created and what name should be used.
The Result
1) At the completion of the 30 day voting period, the vote taker must post
the vote table constructed above, the list of voters and their votes to
news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or mailing lists to which the
original call for votes was posted.
2) [no change]
3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections that might
invalidate the vote, then the result of the vote may me analyzed. Any
specific group name which received fewer then 100 more YES than NO votes
will not be considered for creation. If no name receives 100 more YES than
NO votes, then no group should be created.
If only one specific name receives 100 more YES than NO votes, then the
group will be created using that name. If more than one specific name
receives 100 more YES than NO votes, then the name with the highest
percentage of YES votes will be created.
[no further changes.]
=============================== END OF PROPOSED REVISIONS =====================
Please keep in mind that this is just a proposal. I welcome any comment
anyone has to make.
--
USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
"The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed
entirely of lost airline luggage." -- Mark Russellkayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) (10/16/89)
I'm in favor of Bob Sloane's proposed changes to the newsgroup
creation charter. It seems like it would easily take care of both the
voting and the naming issues simultaneously.
Most of the vote tabulation could be automated (a perl script would
probably do).
By the way, on the aquaria debate:
sci.* NO
rec.aquari* YES
---Kayvan
--
Kayvan Sylvan @ Transact Software, Inc. -*- Los Altos, CA (415) 961-6112
Internet: kayvan@Transact.COM -*- UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,mips}!mrspoc!kayvan
= Interested in story telling group? Mail yarn-spinners-request@transact.com =bbc@nysa.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (10/17/89)
Bob Sloane <sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> presents a proposal: >5) Votes should be cast [using wildcards] >7) Counting the votes may be done as follows... >Please keep in mind that this is just a proposal. I welcome any comment >anyone has to make. Well, you asked for comments, and mine is that your wildcards were too complex. I'll admit your scheme is concise, but IMHO is too confusing for many users. (Just as "IMHO" and similar abbreviations are concise but confusing to USENET novices.) A user-interface expert (such as the guy with whom I share an office) would say that your wildcard specifications are "too unixy". Perhaps you've been using Unix and its syntax for regular expressions for so long that you don't even see this possibility? Certainly it is pleasing to some people, such as those who like mathematical puzzles, to produce the shortest ballot possible. But if a person is only voting once, how much economy is really derived from this, and how sure can a voter be that she's actually said what she meant? From a personal letter that Bob <SLOANE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sent me: > How do I vote against any group in the sci hierarchy and for any group > in the rec hierarchy? I assume the call for votes would have to list all > the possible group names. What if I want to vote for some other name? > It seems simpler to me to say: > > sci.* no > rec.* yes > > rather than give a list of 10 possibilities. In the current sci.aquaria > debate, the suggestions that I remember were: > > [list deleted, but presented below] > > Suppose I just want a group created, and don't care about the name. Do I > list all of these? To the last question, I say "yes". In the modern world of software, I wouldn't type in the list of candidates, but just clip it out of one letter, drop it in another, and edit it a little. ---------------------------------------- Let's compare two other schemes. First, the ballot elided above, written in Alien Wells' style: sci.aquaria no sci.bio.aquaria no sci.aquarium no sci.bio.aquarium no sci.aquariums no sci.bio.aquariums no rec.aquaria yes rec.aquarium yes rec.aquariums yes rec.pets.aquaria yes rec.pets.aquarium yes rec.pets.aquariums yes rec.pets.fish yes This ballot was not too tough to complete, and very obvious in meaning. Alien has already outlined ways in which ballots of this type would be tabulated. I leave the nits, complaints, and implementation details to him. ---------------------------------------- Next, I offer the same ballot, cast according to a preferential scheme. In this system, the choices are reordered by the voter in order of her preference, most preferred first. This scheme would be an excellent choice for the current quandary over alt.aquaria's new name, since it allows many names to be considered in a single vote, and allows the voters to rank them in that single vote. One assumption is that the voter actually has fine-grained opinions about each choice. Note that an extra choice, "none-of-the-below", is added to the list of candidates to indicate the voter's distaste for all the names that follow it on the list. The ordering of the candidates that fall below "none-of-the-below" is unimportant. rec.aquaria rec.aquarium rec.aquariums rec.pets.aquaria rec.pets.fish rec.pets.aquarium rec.pets.aquariums none-of-the-below sci.aquaria sci.bio.aquaria sci.aquarium sci.bio.aquarium sci.aquariums sci.bio.aquariums Now, I haven't worked out all the details of this, but... After collecting the preferential ballots, tally them according to their first choice. Next, iteratively throw out the lowest vote-winner (that is, the "loser"), redistributing its votes to the other candidates, according to the next highest choices on the ballots of that loser. Special treatment is needed for "none-of-the-below" (or whatever you want to call it. I chose that name to make sense from the voter's point of view.). During the iteration mentioned above, this candidate should not have its votes redistributed to other candidates, even if it is (currently) the lowest vote-getter. It can never "lose". Instead, "none-of-the-below" should be passed over, allowing it to accumulate votes, and the next lowest vote-getter should be picked instead. The total votes received by "none-of-the-below" represents the number of voters who consider all the remaining candidates unacceptable. Thus, if rec.aquaria where the loser in the first round, all the votes for rec.aquaria would be redistributed. The above ballot would be counted towards the total for rec.aquarium. If that candidate were to lose later in the tallying, the above ballot would be counted for rec.aquariums. If all the choices that appear above "none-of-the-below" lose, the above ballot would be counted as a veto on the creation of the new group. The process stops when one candidate attains a particular victory condition. If the winning candidate is "none-of-the-below", no group is created. Possible victory conditions might be: 1) majority of votes cast 2) majority, coupled with a certain margin over "none-of-the-above" 3) a certain percentage margin over all the other candidates 4) ? I leave the choice of the victory conditions to the more experienced members of news.groups. Results of voting should include the order in which losers were thrown out, and the number of votes gained by all candidates remaining when the winner achieved victory. To be thorough, one could also report where each person's vote ended up, allowing each voter to verify that their ballot had been followed correctly. Note that this voting scheme allows write-ins, and that reporting the losers in the final results gives the write-ins visibility. If no name wins the vote, perhaps the write-ins could be required choices on any subsequent vote for the proposed group. So, does anyone have opinions on _this_ scheme? -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
tar@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Tim Ramsey) (10/18/89)
In the referenced article, Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: >Bob Sloane <sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> presents a proposal: [ ... ] > A user-interface expert (such as >the guy with whom I share an office) would say that your wildcard >specifications are "too unixy". Perhaps you've been using Unix and >its syntax for regular expressions for so long that you don't even see >this possibility? Pardon me as I add to the noise here, but I had to chuckle over this. Kuhub is a VMS system, and Bob is the resident VMS guru. "Too unixy?" VMS? Ha! (followups to alt.religion.computers :-) -- Whatever happened to Abba? Dept. of Computing and Information Sciences BITNET: tar@KSUVAX1 Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506 Internet: tar@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu Voice: (913) 532-6350 UUCP: ...!{rutgers,texbell}!ksuvax1!tar Fax: (913) 532-7114
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/18/89)
[modified STV counting scheme]
> So, does anyone have opinions on _this_ scheme?
I do. I like it better than any of the modified STV counting schemes I've
come up with, but I still prefer Alien Wells's "vote often" scheme to any
of them. It's got most of the advantages to STV, but is simple enough that
it's worth using for most votes.
--
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the 'U`
participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis" -- Richard Sextonsloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/18/89)
In article <BBC.89Oct17025321@nysa.rice.edu>, bbc@nysa.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes: > Bob Sloane <sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> presents a proposal: > >>5) Votes should be cast [using wildcards] > >>7) Counting the votes may be done as follows... > >>Please keep in mind that this is just a proposal. I welcome any comment >>anyone has to make. > > Well, you asked for comments, and mine is that your wildcards were too > complex. I'll admit your scheme is concise, but IMHO is too confusing > for many users. (Just as "IMHO" and similar abbreviations are concise > but confusing to USENET novices.) A user-interface expert (such as > the guy with whom I share an office) would say that your wildcard > specifications are "too unixy". Perhaps you've been using Unix and > its syntax for regular expressions for so long that you don't even see > this possibility? Hmmm. I specifically allowed for english language voting in the procedure I wrote up. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. The vote: "I think that any sci group should not be created, but vote FOR any rec group." would be OK. How is this too "unixy?" I fully intended to make it as easy as possible to cast votes for the name the voter likes best. If the voter can't make a clear statement about what he/she wants to vote for/against, then perhaps he/she should think about it some more. > Let's compare two other schemes. First, the ballot elided above, written > in Alien Wells' style: > > sci.aquaria no > sci.bio.aquaria no > sci.aquarium no > sci.bio.aquarium no > sci.aquariums no > sci.bio.aquariums no > rec.aquaria yes > rec.aquarium yes > rec.aquariums yes > rec.pets.aquaria yes > rec.pets.aquarium yes > rec.pets.aquariums yes > rec.pets.fish yes This would also be a valid vote in my scheme. I never said that you HAD to use wildcards, just that you could if you wanted. The only real difference between my scheme and Alien's is that I allow the voter to write in group names, and allow (NOT require) a more concise way of specifying the votes. >[much about a preferential scheme of voting deleted] > After collecting the preferential ballots, tally them according to > their first choice. Next, iteratively throw out the lowest > vote-winner (that is, the "loser"), redistributing its votes to the > other candidates, according to the next highest choices on the ballots > of that loser. I am not sure I understand how this works. Suppose the vote counter decides to count votes for sci.fish first, and that group passes. Can the vote taker stop there and announce that sci.fish has passed? I guess I just don't understand "tally them accourding to their first choice." Does this mean that you count the votes as if only the first name in the list counted? If so, then how do you "throw out the lowest vote-winner?" How is this proposal different than Single Transferable Vote? Could you supply some sample votes and how to count them? > The process stops when one candidate attains a particular victory > condition. If the winning candidate is "none-of-the-below", no group > is created. Possible victory conditions might be: > 1) majority of votes cast > 2) majority, coupled with a certain margin over "none-of-the-above" > 3) a certain percentage margin over all the other candidates > 4) ? > I leave the choice of the victory conditions to the more experienced > members of news.groups. It sounds to me as if the vote taker has quite a bit of leeway in deciding what the group name will be, simply by picking in what order to try the votes. The problem with the current scheme is that many people don't care about the name at all, and just vote YES for any group at all. I suspect that there would be enough of these "any name" votes to pass just about any group. In the aquaria debate, the vote taker would start out with sci.aquaria (assuming that was his/her personal favorite) and if it passed, stop counting, even though rec.guppies (or whatever, I'm trying not to offend anyone here :-) got more yes and fewer no votes. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444 "The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage." -- Mark Russell
bbc@titan.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (10/19/89)
Bob Sloane <sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> writes: >Hmmm. I specifically allowed for english language voting in the procedure I >wrote up. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. The vote: > "I think that any sci group should not be created, > but vote FOR any rec group." >would be OK. Well, I know one thing. _I'm_ not going to write or debug the program that counts votes. And I'm not sure I'll ever trust it. >> Let's compare two other schemes. First, the ballot elided above, written >> in Alien Wells' style: [...] >This would also be a valid vote in my scheme. I never said that you HAD to >use wildcards, just that you could if you wanted. The only real difference >between my scheme and Alien's is that I allow the voter to write in group >names, and allow (NOT require) a more concise way of specifying the votes. Ok. Great. >>[much about a preferential scheme of voting deleted] >I am not sure I understand how this works. Nope, you're missing it. Apparently, I need to construct a more elaborate example. > How is this proposal different than Single Transferable Vote? I'm not sure that it is, or in what way it might be. I missed that discussion, but from vague remarks made recently, I think that STV may be similar. Can someone send me a description of it? > Could you supply some sample votes and how to count them? I'll hold off on this until I hear what STV is. It may be instructive to compare and constrast preferential balloting with STV. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (10/19/89)
In article <BBC.89Oct17025321@nysa.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: |... the choices are reordered by the voter in order of her |preference, most preferred first. This scheme would be an excellent |choice for the current quandary over alt.aquaria's new name, since it |allows many names to be considered in a single vote, and allows the voters |to rank them in that single vote. |After collecting the preferential ballots, tally them according to |their first choice. Next, iteratively throw out the lowest |vote-winner (that is, the "loser"), redistributing its votes to the |other candidates, according to the next highest choices on the ballots |of that loser. |So, does anyone have opinions on _this_ scheme? Peter's Single Transferable Vote scheme by any other name ... -- Geoff Allen ...{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff ...ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff
SLOANE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (10/19/89)
I sometimes regret that I didn't pay more attention in that class I took about
writing, because I seem to have a hard time getting my point across. Let me
try one more time.
When we are deciding on whether or not to create a group, we need to decide
two things. First, we need to decide if there is any interest in discussing
the subject, and second we need to decide where to put the group in the news
hierarchy. As we have seen in the (sci|rec).[pets.](aquaria|fish) case, the
current voting mechanism doesn't really work well. It answers the first
question, but not the second.
When we call for votes there are two different groups of people likely to
submit votes. The first group, and IMHO the largest, just wants to discuss
the topic, and doesn't really care about the name. The second group has
nothing against the topic, but favors putting the group in the news hierarchy
in a particular place. Of course some people will be members of both groups.
What I tried to do was come up with a voting mechanism that worked for both
groups. It seems to me that the other proposals leaves one or the other group
of people out.
Take STV. As I understand STV, the people that just want the group created
would have to vote for ALL of the possible names for the group to express what
they want. This means that there is a large body of voters that are voting for
EVERY name. Suppose I am the vote taker for a new group to discuss lithuanian
sheepdogs. I want it to be in the sci hierarchy. I will just count the vote
for sci.lith-dogs first, and it will probably pass because of the large vote
from those who don't care about the name. This defeats the second purpose of
the vote, determining the name, and sort of makes the votes from the people
who care about the name meaningless.
Alien's proposal is very similar to mine, in that he would allow yes or no
votes for each of several possible names. The basic difference between the
two schemes is that he requires a specific list of group names, while I would
allow voting for or against hierarchies. His scheme seems to require a
predefined list of group names, since the voters need to know ALL the possible
names to vote for or against. A stubborn group proposer could just issue a
call for votes for the group name he or she wanted, for example a call for
votes on sci.aquaria (semi-moderated.) Of course, this vote would probably
fail (I have already mailed my no vote), but it would waste time and effort,
and wouldn't really be much different from the current scheme. What would we
do, declare the vote invalid because it didn't specify enough names? Doesn't
sound practical to me.
My proposal differs from Aliens proposal in that I want to allow write-in
votes. Really, that is the only thing I want to add to his proposal. It does
complicate things a bit, because people that want to vote against a
particlular hierarchy can't give a specific list of group to vote against.
That is why I have "wildcard" votes, ie votes against a CLASS of groups,
rather than a specific name. I admit that it is more work for the vote taker,
but I have already volunteered to run votes for anyone who asks, so anyone who
doesn't want the extra work can avoid it. No, I wouldn't write a program to
parse votes in english, I would read them, and translate them myself to use
all the funny "*" characters. All the voters would have to do is tell me
CLEARLY what they were for or agains. I might or might not write a program to
tabulate the translated votes, but I suspect that it wouldn't be too hard to
write. I would present the results in the same form as Alien's vote, ie a
table of all of the specific name voted on, and the yes/no totals for each.
Hopefully, this is a little clearer. I don't really think what I am proposing
is very complicated. After all, I understand it. :-)
--
USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045
E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
"The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed
entirely of lost airline luggage." -- Mark Russellbbc@titan.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (10/20/89)
SLOANE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) writes: First off, Peter da Silva has informed me that the "preferential voting" that I proposed is the same as STV, which is the same as the Australian System. > As I understand STV, the people that just want the group created would > have to vote for ALL of the possible names for the group to express > what they want. This means that there is a large body of voters that > are voting for EVERY name. Yes. Every name (except write-ins), should appear on the ballot submitted with the call for votes. Voting is done by reordering these names. This shouldn't be too arduous, if the voter's mail software cooperates with a text editor. > Suppose I am the vote taker for a new group to discuss lithuanian > sheepdogs. I want it to be in the sci hierarchy. I will just count > the vote for sci.lith-dogs first, and it will probably pass because of > the large vote from those who don't care about the name. No, you can't do that. As the vote taker, you have no control over the outcome, once you get down to tallying votes. The voting is deterministic at that point. Clearly, an example is needed (please forgive any mistakes): ------------------------------------------------------------ Sample ballot: sci.lith-dogs rec.sheep-dogs.lith rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith none-of-the-below Victory conditions: A single candidate receives twice as many votes as any of the other candidates not yet thrown out. (Fairly harsh, but it will improve the instructive qualities of my example.) Voting community (it is important to inject humor into such dry postings): A lazy voter who wants the group B rec group proponent, deep hierarchy advocate C Richard Sexton :-) D Someone trying and failing to be cute, but who wants the group E rec group proponent, who doesn't think sheep-dogs are pets F Person who wants the group, but is in Lithuania, which only gets rec G Person who wants the group, but thinks lith-dog might make some people think of dogs made of lithium, especially if it's in sci, where people talk about lithium a lot. (cf sci.physics.fusion) H Me Votes: A B sci.lith-dogs rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith rec.sheep-dogs.lith rec.sheep-dogs.lith rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith none-of-the-below none-of-the-below sci.lith-dogs C D sci.lith-dogs misc.sheep-dogs.lith ; A write-in none-of-the-below rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith rec.sheep-dogs.lith rec.sheep-dogs.lith sci.lith-dogs none-of-the-below E F rec.sheep-dogs.lith rec.sheep-dogs.lith none-of-the-below rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith none-of-the-below sci.lith-dogs sci.lith-dogs G H rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith sci.lith-dogs rec.sheep-dogs.lith rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith none-of-the-below rec.sheep-dogs.lith sci.lith-dogs none-of-the-below Tallying: First, tally all first-choice votes (the one listed first by each voter). First Round sci.lith-dogs 3 rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith 2 rec.sheep-dogs.lith 2 misc.sheep-dogs.lith 1 Predictably, the write-in gleans the lowest number of (first-choice) votes, so it is chosen as the loser. Taking all the ballots cast for the losing candidate (ie, Voter D's ballot only), the vote taker recasts those ballots according to their next most (ie. second-choice in this case) desired candidate (ie. rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith). Second Round sci.lith-dogs 3 rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith 3 rec.sheep-dogs.lith 2 This time, rec.sheep-dogs.lith is on the bottom of the heap. The vote taker redistributes the votes of the loser, according to their next most desired candidates. (ie. E's vote is recast for "none-of-the-below" and F's vote is recast for rec.pets.dog.sheep.lith) Third Round rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith 4 sci.lith-dogs 3 none-of-the-below 1 Next, none-of-the-below would be thrown out, except it represents the collection of unhappy voters whose voice must be heard. Instead, sci.lith-dogs gets the axe. C's vote is recast for "none-of-the-below". A's vote would be recast for rec.sheep-dogs.lith, but that candidate has already lost. So, A's next choice is used, and A's vote is recast for rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith. H's vote is recast for his next choice, rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith. Final Result rec.pets.dogs.sheep.lith 6 none-of-the-below 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ First things first. I don't know what is the right thing to do when two candidates tie for last place in a given round. I cooked the previous example so that wouldn't happen. Choosing one at random, or allowing the vote taker to pick, would of course not be deterministic. Perhaps Peter can supply the correct Australian behaviour when this happens? The handling of A's ballot may seem odd to some. A's second choice was passed over because not enough voters preferred it enough to keep it in the running. But if A's ballot were thrown out earlier, and recast for A's second choice, then that candidate might have survived longer, or perhaps even won the election. If A had only known that sci.lith-dogs was going to eventually lose, perhaps A would have ranked the candidates differently, bumping other candidates up in the list of preferences. This is peculiar, and I don't understand all the ramifications of this right now. Perhaps Peter will comment on this phenomenon? Does it occur in his STV scheme also? My example shows that the vote taker has no influence on the outcome, _once the votes are received_. However, if the vote taker is allowed to prepare the ballot, the results can be influenced. In particular, lazy voters (or voters that have no preference!), such as voter A, may not modify the list substantially, thus supporting the vote taker's preferences. I suppose different methods of tallying the votes are possible. Perhaps point values could be assigned to each rank, and the points for all the occurrences of all the candidates are totalled and the highest wins. This is less (conceptually) complicated than the scheme I showed above. I'm not sure how the results turn out. The vote could still be influenced by careful crafting of the sample ballot combined with lazy voters. Also, something would have to be done with write-in votes. However, this voting scheme does allow the simultaneous selection of a name from a list of candidate newsgroups and a vote on its creation. ------------------------------------------------------------ Actually, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not this proposal is accepted as the new voting procedure or not. I bothered to generate this overly long example in the hopes that it would help people understand this method of voting. But I think that while I've been frank about the pitfalls of preferential voting, Bob Sloane has failed to mention any detriments that his proposal might have. I feel like I'm being sold a used car. For instance, was it mentioned that people using wildcard votes might be unwittingly voting for write-in candidates? Are there ways to make the ballot simpler for the voter to understand? Have you considered using "all" or "any" instead of "*" to signify a lack of preference? I've seen "all" used on the net with that meaning. Surely you've thought of some of these points? Blah, blah, blah, -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/20/89)
In article <BBC.89Oct20012135@titan.rice.edu>, bbc@titan.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes: >[Excelent example of how STV works deleted...] Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think I understand it now. I still don't quite understand "none of the below." Is it some sort of NO vote? > My example shows that the vote taker has no influence on the outcome, > _once the votes are received_. However, if the vote taker is allowed > to prepare the ballot, the results can be influenced. In particular, > lazy voters (or voters that have no preference!), such as voter A, may > not modify the list substantially, thus supporting the vote taker's > preferences. The problem I have with STV is that I suspect that the vast majority of the voters just don't care what the name is, and just want to vote YES. How can they do that without allowing the vote taker to bias the vote by pre-ordering the list? STV was developed to elect political candidates, and sort of assumes that people have a preference between the possible choices. I don't believe that is the case in newsgroup votes, at least for most people. > Actually, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not this proposal is > accepted as the new voting procedure or not. I bothered to generate > this overly long example in the hopes that it would help people > understand this method of voting. Thanks. Your example helped me a lot. > But I think that while I've been > frank about the pitfalls of preferential voting, Bob Sloane has failed > to mention any detriments that his proposal might have. I feel like > I'm being sold a used car. For instance, was it mentioned that people > using wildcard votes might be unwittingly voting for write-in > candidates? But that is the whole point of having wildcard votes, so people CAN vote for write-in names. I am really not trying to fool anyone here. Do you somehow think that someone who votes "Anything in rec would be fine with me" would somehow now know that they were voting for rec.pets.aquaria? I assume the voters are smarter than that. > Are there ways to make the ballot simpler for the voter > to understand? Have you considered using "all" or "any" instead of > "*" to signify a lack of preference? I've seen "all" used on the net > with that meaning. Surely you've thought of some of these points? I will say this again, because it doens't seem to be getting across. PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO USE * OR ANYTHING ELSE!!!! They can send any anything that they think the vote counter will understand. "Sci.ALL" would be a perfectly legitimate vote. "I vote for anything in the REC hierarchy" would be great. I DON'T CARE HOW PEOPLE EXPRESS THEMSELVES, I just want write-in votes allowed. (Sorry about shouting, but people seem to have focussed on the idea that voters need a degree in math to send in votes. That isn't at all what I meant.) Let me say this one more time and then I will give up. I think the voters should choose the name of the group, not the proposer, not a cabal, the voters. Now there are two basic groups of people that vote. The first group just wants the group created, and doesn't care what the name is. This group would vote yes for misc.einiac.tcp-ip.guppies for the aquaria group, because they just want to discuss the topic. The second group of people care about the name and would rather not have the group created if the the name is not appropiate. I think both of these groups have valid concerns. I am trying to figure out a way that both groups can be heard from in a vote. I would like to allow people to write in the name of the group. I assume that the people that don't care about the name will far outnumber the group that cares about the name, so I am trying to simplify their voting by allowing them to just vote YES to any group that discusses the topic. This means that those people are casting a YES vote for ALL of the names mentioned. This means that the group that cares about the name must be able to vote against classes of names, rather than just being able to vote against specific ones. That is why I suggested wildcards. I think all of these problems are caused by my poor expression of my idea. No, I don't expect people to be able to parse BNF regular expressions, I just expect them to state what they want clearly. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444 "The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage." -- Mark Russell
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/20/89)
I would now prefer that this scheme not be selected, since it's a lot more complex than Alien Wells' scheme (what's a good name for it? Veto voting? Vote Often? Multiple Ballot Voting?), but let's answer a few questions. It's been said that one mark of an expert in a subject is that they tend to say "I don't know" when they don't know. This, as you will see, makes me something of a world authority (:->): In article <BBC.89Oct20012135@titan.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: > First things first. I don't know what is the right thing to do when > two candidates tie for last place in a given round. Perhaps Peter can > supply the correct Australian behaviour when this happens? I don't know. I'd say any deterministic technique would be useful. Giving each 1/2 vote for each second-round ballot they have would be fairer than alphabetical order or something. [ vating paradoxes ] > Does it occur in his STV scheme also? Every voting scheme can produce what are called "voting paradoxes". Godel's theorem rules, as usual. See old "Mathematical Games" columns for more details. > Perhaps point values could be assigned to each rank, and the points > for all the occurrences of all the candidates are totalled and the > highest wins. This scheme is more prone to voting paradoxes than the STV system. > But I think that while I've been > frank about the pitfalls of preferential voting, Bob Sloane has failed > to mention any detriments that his proposal might have. It's even more complex than STV, which is already overkill. Finally, the donkey vote is a problem with all voting systems. In Australia, the order of candidates is chosen by lot. I believe a similar system is used in the U.S. In Australia, each political party figures out the best voting strategy for their candidates, and hands out sample ballots to people encouraging to vote the party line. This is usually ineffective, though, and it's sometimes possible to split the vote by bringing in a candidate you know is going to lose but will draw votes from your opponent. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the 'U` participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis" -- Richard Sexton
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (10/21/89)
In article <6610@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > Finally, the donkey vote is a problem with all voting systems. In Australia, > the order of candidates is chosen by lot. I believe a similar system is > used in the U.S. > In some instances - for instance, Houston city elections (which are nonpartisan). In many States of our Union, tho, each party is assigned a line on the ballot in the same order in which they finished in the last gubernatorial voting. Thus, Texas would be, in 1990, Republican Democratic Libertarian whereas New York might be Democratic Republican Conservative Right to Life Liberal Libertarian Socialist Socialist Workers Populist Socialist Labor American New Alliance Consitution or however they placed in the last go-round. I'm not sure how referenda are ordered, but often it's up to the elections authorities. For instance, California authorities deliberately assigned the Jarvis-Gann tax relief measure the number 13 in 1978, hoping superstition would doom the proposal. It passed, thus temporarily ending the shocking rate of 7,000 homes *a month* being lost due to owner inability to pay property taxes. If order on the ballot is going to be a major factor in these various proposals for Usenet referenda, it might be a good idea to decide upon a formula before the first vote is taken, thus eliminating yet another source of controversy. Jeff Daiell PS - If you don't think ballot order is important in public elections ... in 1982, the Harris County (Houston, Texas) School Board *canceled* an election because a Libertarian had gotten first place on the ballot in one of the two Board races slated for that year. Winning that seat would have given LPers a majority, and the Board's bureaucracy couldn't handle the thought of losing their gravy train (they spent millions per year despite having no schools!) -- My vocabulary can beat up your vocabulary.
bbc@eunomia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (10/21/89)
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >In article <BBC.89Oct20012135@titan.rice.edu>, > bbc@titan.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes: >>[Excelent example of how STV works deleted...] >I will say this again, because it doens't seem to be getting across. PEOPLE >DON'T HAVE TO USE * OR ANYTHING ELSE!!!! They can send any anything that they >think the vote counter will understand. Oww! Stop shouting, you're hurting my eyes! You've pounded it into my thick skull, ok? A thousand pardons for forgetting that the voters use whatever they want, and you translate it into your representation. But, I think Greg Woods has got your number, in his article titled "These new voting schemes" <4771@ncar.ucar.edu>. Votes in plain English may sometimes be ambiguous, and you require us to trust the vote taker to translate them faithfully. Also, it is difficult to verify the results of votes conducted under your scheme. >Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think I understand it now. >I still don't quite understand "none of the below." Is it some sort of NO >vote? Yes. I added it to the simpler form of preferential voting. Without a name like "none of the below" on the ballot, there is no good way for a voter to say "whoa, I really don't like any of the rest of these names." In its simple form, preferential voting _will_ select a candidate as the winner. Clearly, this is not what we want for newsgroup selections. The best way to understand "none of the below" is to look at it from the voter's point of view. I designed it to make sense from that point of view, not from the vote taker's. I think most of your difficulties in understanding my scheme have been caused by looking at it as a vote taker. The voter places at the top of her list the candidate she wants most. She puts her second choice second, indicating that if her first choice can't win, that she would like to cast her vote for her second choice, and so on. At some point, her next choice of a candidate, is "none of the below". I suppose we could also call this choice "I prefer having no group to having a group named any of the following:", if that would improve her understanding any. > I assume the voters are smarter than [to use wildcards without realizing > that they might be voting for write-ins]. This, in my opinion, is a bad assumption. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas (First one up against the wall when the fish police arrived.)