Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Single Transferable Vote

Rotlink[edit]

In dem vorletzten Spiegelstrich unten wird auf diese Seite als Beispiel für eine größere Wahl verlinkt, das ist allerdings ein Rotlink. Kommt da noch was?

In the next-to-last bullet point is a reference to this page as an example for a bigger election, alas it is a red-link. Is there something in the pipeline? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 08:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe gerade das Original gefunden: hier im MediaWiki.

Just found the original page: here in the MediaWiki. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 08:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Sänger! I think it broke when we moved the page from its original location on Mediawiki. NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why not use cardinal voting[edit]

insert arrows’s theorem

STV was requested by the Board Elections Committee as the voting method of choice for this Board election. I won't speak on their behalf but I know they did look into quite a few different voting methods before collectively deciding on using Single Transferable Vote. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at en:Arrow's impossibility theorem, it does not apply to multi-winner voting such as en:proportional representation. In general the dilemma posed by Arrow is specific to single-winner methods. Arrow himself recommended proportional voting methods [1]. Most of them arrive at similar results. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why blank vote is not available[edit]

Hello,

As we can see in this picture, it seems impossible to make a blank vote, while it can be a way to express disagreement with the use of the electoral system. Has this issue ever been addressed before? If so, can someone provide me with a link? Sincerely, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 11:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionel Scheepmans, Thanks for your feedback on this. If you like, you may express your concerns with the Elections Committee. They would be the best to hear your feedback about this in more detail than a blank ballot could provide. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this kick answer @JKoerner (WMF). I'll do it late good idea ! May the force be with you ! Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 17:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionel Scheepmans: This should be possible in theory. I suggest filing a task at Phabricator. Let me know if you need any help with this. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information @4nn1l2. I've just posted a message for the election comity as a first step before Phabricator. Let we see the answer and after your help will be welcome. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 09:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

I WANT TO VOTE Kaabascubber (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to vote, because you don't fulfil the criteria. See here for those criteria. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same rank for multiple candidates[edit]

Can I rank multiple candidates the same rank? [The instructions don't say]

(This example doesn't say anything about my vote)

Say I want to rank A, B, C, and D *all* 1st.
That means I feel they're very similar in rank
It would be as if A, B, C, and D got 1/4 of my vote

If A is already eliminated, B, C, and D get 1/3 of my vote (since they have higher precedence)
If A, B, and C were eliminated, D would get 100% of my vote
If all of them were eliminated, the candidate(s) in 2nd place would get my vote
[Same thing if there's a surplus of votes]

sidenote: Because I can't skip ranks, it's possible that I would put
ABCD - 1st
EFGH - 2nd

ps: Does anyone have some advice for voting? AltoStev (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't.

My advice is to only rank the candidates you know and support. Never rank the candidates you oppose with, even as the lowest priority, because any candidate on your ballot has a chance of getting a fraction of your vote. But you would normally prefer to waste a fraction of your vote instead of helping someone you oppose with. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AltoStev and 4nn1l2: Wait, so that means that all candidates who do not get a ranked vote have the same default rank, which is last or 0. If a person has multiple candidates which they would rank last, then blank = 0. Right? Last place ranking is built into the system to accept assignment to multiple candidates, but there is no way to assign this for other ranks, such as with multiple candidates all as a top choice. Right? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.

If I hate some candidate, the best thing that I can do is to leave him altogether. If I hate some other candidate even more, the best thing that I can do is again to just leave him altogether. In other words, I can't differentiate between those whom I hate using this voting system.

I will only rank the candidates whom I love or those towards whom I am indifferent. But I must give each one a unique ranking. This means that if love two candidates exactly equally, then I should rank them just by chance. I must differentiate between them. ‎4nn1l2 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]