Re: Results for Project membership procedures
On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com> writes:
> > Thank you for the detailed analysis.
> > You missed one point:
> > Excluding votes where more than one
> > option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
> > following results:
> > Option 1: 93
> > Option 2: 90
> > Option 3: 61
> > Option 4: 12
> > "Invalid" votes (more than one first choice): 20
> > So, using plurality voting, we would have had a different result than
> > the one we had with condorcet. This is actually quite rare: it
> > happened with the debian-private declassification vote in 2005 (option 1
> > was the plurality winner), and in the 2003 DPL election (Branden
> > Robinson was the plurality winner).
> I suspect this is because the obvious "please, dear deity, stop talking
> about things constantly and just do them" vote ranks 3 above 2 above 1, so
> I doubt many votes transferred from 3 to 1 when 3 was eliminated.
There's no such transfer in plurality voting (where you only vote for
one option). That transfer happens in instant-runoff voting, but I
didn't compare our condorcet results with IRV results. That's not easy
to do accurately because you can't rank several options at the same
level with IRV, so you would have to ignore a lot of ballots.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: email@example.com GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |