[wplug-plan] Election rule change proposal

[Vance Kochenderfer]

David Ostroske wrote:
> Vance, nothing personal, but the proposal as it stands needs work. And
> even if it's revised, while I can't say I'd sleep any less comfortably
> at night if we went to a block voting method, I'm nevertheless
> compelled to oppose it.

I understand, and honestly wish the current system was workable, as it
does offer some nice features.  It just doesn't seem to be working in
practice.

There are really two problems I am trying to solve:
1. Voters unintentionally spoiling their ballots.
2. The possibility of needing to hold multiple rounds of balloting.

> > A plurality vote shall elect Directors. Any ties shall be
> > decided by random selection.
> 
> This is a multi-seat election, so you need to add some details.

Actually, the idea was to leave out as many details as possible and
use the defaults in Robert's.  I'll explain more below (page and line
references are to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed.).

> How many votes does each voter get?

> - Five, i.e. one for each seat? (That's called block voting, which is
> what we use in PA for school board elections, and that's probably what
> Vance is thinking of.)

Yes, there would be one vote for each seat.  Voters could cast up to
five votes for up to five candidates (p. 427, ll. 6-11; p. 402, ll.
1-11).  Cumulative voting (i.e., permitting a voter to cast more than
one vote for a particular candidate) is not allowed (p. 429, ll.
16-29).

It is also used here in PA in municipalities which elect council
members at large (i.e., they don't represent individual wards).

> You'd probably need to add language to allow tied candidates to
> withdraw, as you suggest below. Otherwise, the tellers could break the
> tie at random before announcing the results.

Good point; I hadn't thought that quite through.  Ordinarily the
results wouldn't be known to anybody (including the candidates) until
the tellers report to the whole group.  I will include language on
this if I proceed with the proposal.

> It's true that we've had a few invalid ballots each year. From the
> times I've served as teller, I can say that the invalid ballots were
> all caused because the voter did not read the instructions and just
> put X's next to people's names.

I seem to remember seeing someone giving 5's?  Maybe I dreamed that...

> This can be fixed by putting a 1, 2, and 3 next to the nominees'
> names and instructing the voters to circle numbers, instead of
> putting in a blank next to the names and crossing our fingers.

I can't recall seeing this before, and I hope you'll forgive me for
not going through my 2-1/2" stack of papers from the bylaws-drafting
process to look for it.  :)  I agree that this would be a great
improvement, and support it if we decide to stick with the current
voting system.  However, people put X's (and 5's) in their ballots
despite BOLD CAPITAL instructions not to, so who knows what creative
ways of spoiling their ballots they will be able to come up with using
your proposed format?

This still doesn't address the problem of people undervoting.  I
wonder (but don't know for sure) whether voters are limiting the
number of choices because a) they mistakenly believe they are limited
to rating only five candidates or b) they believe doing so will
increase the chances of their favorite candidate winning.

> As for last year's problems, we did not have enough nominees after
> Bill Moran and I dropped out. To their credit, Brian Seklecki and Bob
> Turley mounted write-in campaigns, but the majority-consent restraints
> kicked in when neither one got their names on over half of the ballots
> in the first round.

I never received the tellers' report from October's round of
balloting, so don't have the numbers, but my recollection is that
Brian was next on the list after Dave (who was #4 elected).  So we
went through a second round essentially just to confirm that result.

> The solution to this problem is NOT to drop the majority-consent
> conditions, which would be easy but foolish. We don't want vote
> packing to occur, and majority consent does prevent this, despite the
> extra complexity it may cause.

I don't understand what you mean by "vote packing" here.  If a small
evil group joins WPLUG just because they want to elect Steve Ballmer
to the board, the defense of the other members under a plurality
system is to vote for someone else.  If the evil group is large
enough, then Ballmer can be elected under either system.

> The solution is simply to nominate more candidates.

I agree that was a major factor last year, exacerbated by the
uncertainty of who was current on the membership list.

> > In addition, vote-counting has been time-consuming because tellers
> > have had to be trained in the system each time and learn on the
> > job.
> 
> This would happen regardless of the voting method we use. The tellers
> must make sure all ballots are valid and are cast by members in good
> standing, tally the votes, put together a report and announce the
> results. They need training for that anyway. As far as the voting
> method goes, the only complexity added to the tallying comes from
> measuring majority consent and breaking ties.

I have to give you props for actually having served as a teller.  :)
However, you forgot to mention applying the multipliers and totaling
up the points received by each candidate.  It really isn't that
difficult when you understand the system, but my experience from
serving as a teller in one election was that the other tellers never
really did understand the system, and I ended up filling in the sheet.

> I've also got to add that Robert's Rules discourages the use of
> plurality voting.

Robert's does generally speak against a plurality vote (p. 391, l.35-
p. 392, l. 13).  A major reason for this is because multiple ballots
do not pose undue hardship under its standard election method.  Our
requirement that elections be conducted by absentee ballot makes
reballoting difficult and time-consuming, and Robert's recognizes that
organizations which vote by mail can avoid delay and expense by
electing by plurality.  It does recommend preferential voting over
plurality voting in such cases, though.

My main reason for choosing plurality voting is because it is a system
that people are most likely to be familiar with from school board and
municipal elections.  Because it is conceptually simple, it is easier
for the tellers, and easier for the voters to understand.  I feel that
complexity tends to lessen voters' confidence in the system, since
they may not understand how their vote influences the result.  And we
have seen that voters who misread the instructions spoil their ballots
and end up having zero influence on the result.

> According to Wikipedia (I don't have a copy of
> Robert's readily available), Robert's recommends a preferential system
> of block voting. I personally wouldn't recommend it, but it's an
> option.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_block_voting

The "rank ballot" shown on that page corresponds to the method of
preference voting described in Robert's (p. 411, l. 30-p. 413, l. 24).
As noted before, I'm not inclined to go this way because of voter
unfamiliarity with this system.

And I did read the whole thing!  Thanks for responding!

Vance Kochenderfer        |  "Get me out of these ropes and into a
vkochend at nyx.net          |   good belt of Scotch"    -Nick Danger