The Voting Process

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Well, as Tony explained it during one of the hundreds of Jerry Mathers Friends & Family Election Strategy Conference Calls (tm) I've been forced to endure (and frankly, it's time for Mr Dow to quit riding on Jerry's coattails):

Their choice of candidates by personal preference is Ro, Jerry and Bruno, in that order. But they want to keep the NomCom cabal from a clean sweep...so they're telling everyone to give Bruno the #1 slot, as a way to help block Mark's "psuedo-slate" package voting advantage.

If they get 5,000 USFA voters to swing their way, wouldn't that game the results? And wouldn't it be beneficial to know if there was a substantial 1 vs 3 penalty factor?

That's what The Beav was reading to me off the elections page of the "Robot Men From Mars" comic book...and they wouldn't say that if it wasn't true, would they?

(cultural reference requires mandatory research on the TVLand Network for anyone born after 1970)

[Catseye]

Question - are new USFA members allowed to vote? and by new I mean joined after May when ballots were mailed out.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Catseye

Question - are new USFA members allowed to vote? and by new I mean joined after May when ballots were mailed out.

No, you must have been a member as of Feb. 1, IIRC (somebody confirm that date...)

-m

[dberke]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

No, you must have been a member as of Feb. 1, IIRC (somebody confirm that date...)

This is correct - you have to be a member as of Feb 1, 2008 (and age 18 as of that date) to be eligible to vote. See Article IV, Section 2 of the USFA Bylaws.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Who cares? Regardless of the technicalities of the system, you would still put (1) down for your first choice (2) for your second and (3) for your third. They provided you will all the information needed to fill out the ballot correctly. Since you don't actually know everyone else's votes, there's no way to vote where you could plan certain outcomes, regardless of process.

I think this is a valid point, and potentially gives a more "pure" vote. By not disclosing the counting method, it makes it harder for people to "game the system" by voting in an order other than their true preference. Is it possible that the election committee has decided exactly what counting procedure they plan on using, but they intentionally have not disclosed it for that reason?

Dan

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by dberke

{snip}
I think this is a valid point, and potentially gives a more "pure" vote. By not disclosing the counting method, it makes it harder for people to "game the system" by voting in an order other than their true preference.

Doesn't it actually make it harder for people to vote for their true preferences if they don't know how their vote will be treated?

Is it possible that the election committee has decided exactly what counting procedure they plan on using, but they intentionally have not disclosed it for that reason?

I certainly hope not. And there is absolutely no excuse not to have told the candidates the method of voting.

There are really two "fairness" issues here, as I see it. The first is a that (as pointed out by RRO) voters really should know how votes are being tabulated before they are asked to vote if it could make a difference--and if it might reduce the number of ballots filled out incorrectly.

The second is that where there are several ways to count votes, and different ways may result in different results, not disclosing the method you are using before votes come in lays you open to accusations of intentionally trying to make sure the results come out in a certain way.

Given the number of people reporting they have asked (and the indication that the USFA office has forwarded the question) the Election Committee's lack of response for almost two-weeks now is inexplicable.

Are they trying to cause hard feelings?

--Philistine

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by dberke

Is it possible that the election committee has decided exactly what counting procedure they plan on using, but they intentionally have not disclosed it for that reason?

So you're speculating and asking whether the election committee has decided exactly to intentionally violate the bylaws and Bob's Rules?

Never ascribe to incompetence that which can be explained by malice and incompetence, eh?

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Doesn't it actually make it harder for people to vote for their true preferences if they don't know how their vote will be treated?

I don't think so - I would expect that votes for the first choice candidate weigh more than votes for the second and third choice. And the second weighs more than than the third choice.

Are there any preferential voting systems where that isn't the case? Unless there are, I don't see how which counting method is being used would cause someone to change their vote.

Originally Posted by Philistine

I certainly hope not. And there is absolutely no excuse not to have told the candidates the method of voting.

There are really two "fairness" issues here, as I see it. The first is a that (as pointed out by RRO) voters really should know how votes are being tabulated before they are asked to vote if it could make a difference--and if it might reduce the number of ballots filled out incorrectly.

The second is that where there are several ways to count votes, and different ways may result in different results, not disclosing the method you are using before votes come in lays you open to accusations of intentionally trying to make sure the results come out in a certain way.

Given the number of people reporting they have asked (and the indication that the USFA office has forwarded the question) the Election Committee's lack of response for almost two-weeks now is inexplicable.

Are they trying to cause hard feelings?

I agree with what you're saying... I was just speculating that maybe they have decided these things and told the candidates, but asked that the information not be announced to avoid the "gaming of the system" that people described earlier.

If they haven't yet decided which counting system they're using, I wonder what the holdup is - I'm sure there is plenty of documentation on the various choices and their pros & cons. As well as rules for how to count ballots where people just marked with three "X" choices rather than "1,2,3". After all, it's not like this hasn't been done before...

Originally Posted by fencerX

So you're speculating and asking whether the election committee has decided exactly to intentionally violate the bylaws and Bob's Rules?

Never ascribe to incompetence that which can be explained by malice and incompetence, eh?

I checked the bylaws and didn't see any explicit requirements about how to count the votes, so I don't think they're ignoring any requirements.

Given the earlier fiasco around the acceptance of the arbitration agreements, I would hope they're following the rules to the letter! But maybe I'm being too optimisitc...

Dan

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by dberke

I don't think so - I would expect that votes for the first choice candidate weigh more than votes for the second and third choice. And the second weighs more than than the third choice.

Are there any preferential voting systems where that isn't the case? Unless there are, I don't see how which counting method is being used would cause someone to change their vote.

AIUI, there are cases where the weights are different--under different types of preferential voting for instance, the same ballots would produce different results.

I agree with what you're saying... I was just speculating that maybe they have decided these things and told the candidates, but asked that the information not be announced to avoid the "gaming of the system" that people described earlier.

It's not so much "gaming the system" as being able to determine the optimum voting strategy. It may be possible, for instance, depending on the method used and the # of supporters out there, for one "slate's" supporters to insure that one member of their slate is voted in if a certain voting strategy is pursued by its supporters, even if there is no hope of all 3 VP candidate's being voted in.

I suppose it's possible that they told the Candidates, though FWIU, they've been contending up until recently that they have not been told --and I doubt they'd lie about it--maybe the fact that none of them have chimed in recently means they've been told, but asked to keep it quiet (but that seems like a pretty big stretch to me).

If they haven't yet decided which counting system they're using, I wonder what the holdup is - I'm sure there is plenty of documentation on the various choices and their pros & cons. As well as rules for how to count ballots where people just marked with three "X" choices rather than "1,2,3". After all, it's not like this hasn't been done before...

I'm with you. I just don't understand how they could have sent the ballots out without an understanding of how to count them.

Personally, my vote () would be for a modified form of the illustration in Robert's Rules of Order: If, by counting each 1, 2 and 3 vote as equally valid, those who receive a majority of votes are elected. If there aren't 3 elected by majority, you go to the "instant runoff" election style described in RRO. That way, XXX votes get counted (at least in the first instance).

I checked the bylaws and didn't see any explicit requirements about how to count the votes, so I don't think they're ignoring any requirements.

I don't know--how about the requirements to develop a nonambiguous ballot and to administer the election fairly?

--Philistine

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Philistine

AIUI, there are cases where the weights are different--under different types of preferential voting for instance, the same ballots would produce different results.

But there *isn't* a system where marking a candidate as (1) means anything other than that candidate being your first choice. The results may differ, but your voting behavior will still be the same.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

But there *isn't* a system where marking a candidate as (1) means anything other than that candidate being your first choice.

Sure there is. It could very well make more sense to base your #1 vote on factors other than who you most want to see win. For instance, due to the listing order of candidates, it's possible that a voter in favor of a slate whose first choice is the first listed person of that slate may want to put his #1 vote on another candidate. It depends on the system and their estimation of other people's voting patterns.

The results may differ, but your voting behavior will still be the same.

Hasn't pretty much the main point of this thread been that depending on the voting system, your voting behaviour would not necessarily be the same?

Beyond the whole "it doesn't matter" argument--is there any good reason you can think of why the Election Committee hasn't responded to requests on how they will count the votes?

--Philistine

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Was there some inherently evil problem with just marking your three favorite choices for VP...all the votes are tallied, and the three highest vote total getters are the three winners?

It seems to me that since there is allegedly no pecking order among the three post-election, why struggle with weighting who got the most 1st place votes or the least 3rds, or whatever preferential coin-tossing you employ?

But then, I'm no Psephologicalist...

What you are advocated is a form of constrained Approval Voting. There are significant (and in my personal opinion, dealbreaking) drawbacks to that system. Donald Saari has outlined them in an article, let me know if you can not find it with a Google.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by FencingKitten

...As has been pointed out, different systems of preferential voting can take the exact same data set and acheive different results, which is why the stats-lovers here want to know exactly how it's going to go....

I don't think it would make any difference which system was chosen, some on this forum would find a reason to B----H about it or scheme to skew the vote in some way.
That is why I believe partly that the EC should hold their cards close until the deadline for voting has passed.
How about this...Do you think the results were skewed by the second set of VPs being on the second page?
Conspiracy! Conspiracy! The shot cam from the grassy knoll!

[gorgie101]

I really don't see what the big deal is. You should vote for the three people you want as VP's. List them in order 1,2, and 3. Not that hard to do. It should not matter what system they use to count those votes as long as they get counted. That is the thing all the pro election people have been saying all along, "At least now I get a vote. " If knowing how the votes are counted will make you change your order of voting then you are trying to rig the election, which is wrong.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

If knowing how the votes are counted will make you change your order of voting then you are trying to rig the election, which is wrong.

And you shouldn't train to remise to take advantage of the new foil timings, even though it puts on one light, because that's not what foil is supposed to be about...

Now, I run away, cackling...

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

I really don't see what the big deal is. You should vote for the three people you want as VP's. List them in order 1,2, and 3. Not that hard to do. It should not matter what system they use to count those votes as long as they get counted. That is the thing all the pro election people have been saying all along, "At least now I get a vote. " If knowing how the votes are counted will make you change your order of voting then you are trying to rig the election, which is wrong.

Whoa!!! Whoa!!!! Whoa!!! Whoa!!! Whoa!!! Whoa!!!

Excuse me?

I'll give you a very very very long pause to recant.

I'm absolutely horrified. Save yourself.

[MHS Fencer]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Who cares? Regardless of the technicalities of the system, you would still put (1) down for your first choice (2) for your second and (3) for your third. They provided you will all the information needed to fill out the ballot correctly. Since you don't actually know everyone else's votes, there's no way to vote where you could plan certain outcomes, regardless of process.

Actually, they didn't. If we're using the preferential system as illustrated in Robert's Rules of Order then we ought to be ranking all of our preferences, 1-6, as was pointed out about half a thread ago - otherwise voters' options will be exhausted, and may lead to an election without a majority (which is required I believe?) RRoO allows for different preferential voting methods as well, but, as has also been pointed out, we don't know what's being done given that they aren't following the requirements of a complete ordered set (although I'm going to attribute this to a lack of understanding of voting methods and not malice aforethought).

There really is a big difference in potential results with these different voting systems as Peter has been saying - an idea i found completely foreign until I took a class on the subject a few years ago and saw what diverse outcomes could occur based on different methods of balloting/counting, which is why multiple balloting at a convention is the preferred RRoO method of election.

Look at TChowjko's example - under the preferential system as illustrated in RRoO, A,B,C will be elected, however, in a constrained approval method D would be elected, even though a majority preferred A,B, and C over D.

What I'm wondering is if they'll throw my vote out for marking 1-6 as would be properly required (probably, yes, so I'll play along with their incorrect system).

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

And you shouldn't train to remise to take advantage of the new foil timings, even though it puts on one light, because that's not what foil is supposed to be about...

Now, I run away, cackling...

I dont' fence foil so I could really care less about foil timings.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by gorgie101

I dont' fence foil so I could really care less about foil timings.

Could you?

How much less?