Wikipedia talk:Vote

Summary of positions (mark your name against a choice, comments in brackets - don't bother adding up scores because this is not a democracy)


 * 1 Susan's variation on borda count / approval voting
 * Susan Mason
 * 2 approval voting
 * Martin, Sfmontyo
 * 3 first past the post
 * 4 Some other kind of variation on approval voting/runoff elections/cumulative or prioritized voting
 * Susan Mason (second choice)
 * Susan Mason (second choice)

Talk: List of United States people
from Talk:List of United States people

The following discussion about how to reach a consensus through voting was moved from talk:List of United States people.

Susan Mason proposed a voting system prior to a suggestion by Martin that we use the approval voting. Below is a description of Susan's system:

Susan's Proposed Voting System
Numbers in parenthesis reflect the number of votes made where a 1st choice=10 points (as there are 10 options), 2nd choice=9 points, 3rd choice=8 points, and so on, and in which a lone unpreferentiated vote equals 10 points, two unpreferentiated votes equal 9.5 points each (10+9/2), three unpreferentiated votes get 9 points each (10+9+8/3), four votes equal 8.5, and in the case of Infrogmations 7 votes each vote equals 7 points each (10+9+8+7+6+5+4/7). In beside each name is the number of votes cast and the (preference) and the # of points each vote is worth.

Beside each vote are two numbers in parenthesis, the first is the number of points given to each choice in the above-described system, the second is the number of points given if this were pure approval voting whereby each vote is worth 10 points regardless of preference.


 * (74) (80) -- List of people from the United States: mav (1-#10), TUF-KAT (1-#10), Infrogmation (7-#7), Ortolan88 (1-#10), Danny (1-#10), AstroNomer (1-#10), Susan Mason (7(4)-#7), Eloquence (1-#10)
 * (49) (50) -- List of Americans: sfmontyo(3(1)-#10), Zoe (1-#10) (and, as of right now, only acceptable choice), Tannin(2(1)-#9), Rmhermen (1-#10), Someone else (1-#10)
 * (29) (40) -- List of Americans(US) or List of Americans(USA): sfmontyo(3(2)-#9), Susan Mason (7(7)-#4), Infrogmation (7-#7), Mkweise (2(2)-#9)
 * (26) (30) -- List of US nationals: Susan Mason (7(1)-#10) Tannin (2(2)-#9), Infrogmation (7-#7)
 * (18) (20) -- List of U.S. Americans: Mkweise (1-#10), Susan Mason (7(3)-#8)
 * (16) (20) -- List of US citizens: Infrogmation(7-#7), Susan Mason (7(2)-#9)
 * (13) (20) -- List of people from the USA: - Infrogmation (7-#7), Susan Mason (7(5)-#6)
 * (8) (10) -- [List of people from the United States|List of Americans]] : sfmontyo (3(3)-#8)
 * (7) (10) -- List of United States people: Infrogmation (7-#7)
 * (5) (10) -- List of Usians: Susan Mason (7(6)-#5)

Moved Discussion about the Susan Voting System
Sfmontyo-You havent taken the time to see what this system is doing. You cannot place all your votes on one choice. Susan Mason
 * I just noticed it and was crafting a response. I got an edit conflict with you, but you're right I missed his comments. Sfmontyo


 * Whoa there-- I was voting on a strictly binary "That one sounds okay by me" v/s "No, I think we can do a lot better" basis. I (and perhaps some others?) didn't know it would be tallied as above and would have adjusted them had I known. -- Infrogmation (Note: this comment was related to an earlier version of the votes here)


 * First off, you can change them all you like. This certainly isnt a final tally but merely an example of how I think voting could work. The 6 points you have per vote reflects nothing more than "That one sounds ok by me", with emphasis decreasing as you find more and more options to be ok. Its far better to vote with (1st choice) (2nd choice); unless you honestly dont care which is chosen, as long as it isnt those which u havent voted for.


 * In essence, some people were using 1st choice/2nd choice voting and I simply tallied everything up so people would see what is meant by 1st choice/2nd choice. Of course such tallying is not the only way to do this, but at the moment it seems like a good way to me.


 * In addition, should u wish to tier your votes, then u could introduce a Infromagation (8-8th choice), in that case your first 7 votes would all be equal at 6 points, and your 8th vote would be at 2 points. In any case, your votes are currently tallied as all being your 1st choice as you indicated no preference. Susan Mason

Susan Mason


 * Umm. Is there a reason why approval voting is unacceptable for this vote? The ideosyncratic system you propose is harder to work out and suffers from the spoiler effect. Plus wikipedia is not a democracy - in my experience people don't follow votes slavishly, but instead work to achieve consensus. Martin


 * Ooops, I didn't see your entry Martin. Yes, the approval system is much preferred to the current system as a way of generating consensus. I withdraw my ad hock alternate voting system with the added bonus of having learned about a new topic approval voting. - Sfmontyo


 * Approval voting sounds reasonable to me too. -- Infrogmation`

And in my experience I havent been ordering you to do anything, merely presenting a more informative tally of the votes made. You say the system I suggested is harder to work out...but nobody asked you to work it out. I did that for you. Susan Mason

Susan, I've read your system, but looked at the results and I'm not certain that I understand. I believe it goes something like this: my first choice, I get to assign 9 pts for my second choice, I get to assign 8 pts third, 7 fourth, 6 if and only if I pick one.

If I have no preference betwen my 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices, I may average the numbers 8, 7, and 6 assign 7 to each of those choices. Is that correct? Then I'm confused as to why my first choice is 3 and not 9
 * (45) -- List of Americans: sfmontyo(3- 1st choice), Zoe

What does the 3 mean? Evidently, I don't understand what is going on here. - Sfmontyo

sfmontyo-you made 3 votes, with your 1st choice curently listed as List of Americans-so you have contributed 9 points to the final tally. The 3 indicates the number of votes u made. Susan Mason

Yes, I figured it out, thanks. I had just finished adding points to each entry in order to be clear, but got another edit conflict. I could redo this, but before I do, how do you feel about the approval voting system? Want to withdraw yours? - Sfmontyo

Does pure approval voting allow one to distinguish that Option A is not ideal, but is certainly preferable to Option B, however, Option C is considered to be the best option? My system is approval voting, but it it allows one to weight the votes to a degree. Susan Mason


 * Before we get totally off-topic, perhaps we should move this discussion to the newly created vote and let people get on with the business of reaching consensus without this added distraction. Martin

A couple of points:

1. The person who creates a vote block may attempt to guess other people's positions, from what they've said in Talk, by placing their names in the vote block in an appropriate place - This is _a bad idea_! If people can't bother to vote by themselves then their opinion doesn't count. Simple as that. People being able to sign for other people will just create new controversies and unproductive discussion (and we've got enough of those as is on wikipedia).

2. As much as it is annoying we'll have to have a way to deal with close decisions, and whether changes to decisions are possible (think percentage approval by parliament needed for ammending a constitution.) --snoyes 23:38 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Good point in (1) snoyes - you've convinced me, at least.


 * I was hoping to merrilly skate away from (2), which is a more fundamental point. This is really just discussing a reasonably commonly used tool

Sorry Susan, but your proposed voting system, innovative and interesting though it is, produces absurd and very undemocratic results. Consider the following - for the sake of clarity, just using the example of my own vote here.


 * -- List of Americans: 9
 * -- List of Americans(US) or List of Americans(USA): 8
 * -- List of US nationals: 7
 * -- List of US citizens: 6
 * -- List of people from the USA: 5
 * -- List of people from the United States: 4
 * -- [List of people from the United States|List of Americans]] : 3
 * -- List of United States people: 2
 * -- List of Usians: 1

The totals are:


 * Names which I support: 9 points
 * Names which I consider bearable but sub-optimal: 8 points
 * Names to which I am fully opposed: 28 points

A voting system that winds up assigning more than three times as many votes to the names I wish to vote against as to the one that I support ain't democatic! Tannin


 * Tannin, you aren't understanding the system. You do not have to vote for everything. In the above example, you would assign 9 points to names which u support, 8 points to those which u consider bearable but sub-optimal, and 0 to those in which you are opposed. While I doubt my system is exactly what we want, I think its in the right direction. Susan Mason

Question: Does setting up such a system discourage anonymous edits? newbie edits? Would it encourage long-standing users to get upset with newbies editing articles? Just wondering. Atorpen 00:12 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

If a vote is necessary about the title of list of [Americans/United States People/etc.], I think you should try instant runoff voting. It avoids the problem of having Tannin contribute points to outcomes he hates. It also means you can vote for your top choice without fear. On the other hand, all the vote will really do--no matter how conducted--is shed light on all our beliefs. I keep reading that wikipedia is not a democracy. Even if there's a winner in the vote, you still need to come to concensus.

The other funny thing in this conversation is that people keep referring to "unregistered" contributors and voters as if they are second class voters or second class contributors. That seems very outside the spirit of wikipedia to me.

Arthur


 * I agree very strongly with Arthur's second comment. :) Atorpen

Tannin does not have to contribute points to choices he opposes. Susan Mason

''removed duplicate content from Susan - see "My system, being a variant on approval voting, ..." below''

I take your point, Susan, but let's think it through, asuming that I take your advice and only vote for things I am in favour of. Let's also say you are against using "Americans", which leads you to favour "List of people from the USA" and the other ones like it - "List of US Nationals", "List of US citizens" and so on. (I'm not saying you do favour those, just assuming it for the sake of an example.) Now, let's count the votes:

Me:
 * -- List of Americans: 9
 * -- no other votes unless I count "List of Americans (US)"

My total votes: 9 (or possibly 17)

You:


 * -- List of US nationals: 9
 * -- List of US citizens: 8
 * -- List of people from the USA: 7
 * -- List of people from the United States: 6
 * -- [List of people from the United States|List of Americans]] : 5
 * -- List of United States people: 4
 * -- List of Usians: 3

Your total votes: 42 (or possibly 44 if we count ""Americans (US)). A voting system that gives you up to four times as many votes as me is a scam! Tannin


 * Its about time... a bit idealistic, perhaps, after all the way it really works is somebody whines to a sysop and they get around eventually to putting a foot down. This only problem with this vote thing is it inefficient: Its easier to just INSULT someone until Mav comes along. -&#35918&#30505

Well Tannin, first off this issue you point at exists in approval voting, which was what was being used before I offered my modified approval voting. For example, if you only vote for the one choice, and I approve of 7 others, than I have voted 7 times as much as you. However, Im not so sure its a problem because we are only chosing X (usually X=1) options, for example, lets say I voted 60,000 times for Josef Stalin and 50,000 times for Karl Marx, while you voted 60,000 times for Roosevelt. Granted, I voted 110,000 times (while u voted 60,000) but I didn't vote 110,000 times for the same person, in essence all I did was vote ONCE for either Joseph Stalin OR Karl Marx, with a priority for Stalin.

Imagine that we were voting on something and you just KNOW the correct choice is going to have an A in it, and you KNOW everything else is bad, but u dont know or care which A choice is selected. In traditional voting you would have this:

Please select 1:
 * A
 * B
 * AA
 * C
 * AB
 * D
 * ACD

And everybody gets just one vote. However, do u want A, AA, AB, or ACD? Approval voting argues that one shouldnt be limited in such a fashion, and granted somebody who votes for A, AA, AB, and ACD makes 4 votes, whilst somebody who votes for D only makes 1, is the person who voted once each for A, AA, AB, and ACD really scamming the other person?

In my version, I tried to introduce some means by which u could distinguish that you want A above all others, but AA, AB, and ACD are also acceptable. I agree that my version probably isnt the best method of doing so, but certainly we want a version that does something of that nature.

Susan Mason

If this was to be a software implementation - Ive suggested it b'fore... using the "committee" consensus in a larger and quantified way... but.. LOL.. look at the average edit war, etc.. maybe four people involved... - &#35918&#30505

-

I strongly object to giving the same weight to 3rd and 4th choices as to 1st choices. They should only be counted as .33 and .25 of a vote, if at all. For that reason, I will not vote for my second choice unless the votes are weighted more fairly. -- Zoe

This voting system sucks, sucks, sucks. Gah. You make me wish to start hacking on wiki-integrated voting again .. --Eloquence 02:50 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * My system, being a variant on approval voting, gives essentially the same results. The primary difference is that my system does something which Zoe should approve of since she feels that second/third choices deserve less points, in that, my system does give those second/third/fourth choices less points.


 * The main difference between these systems is that mine has yet to create any ties, for example the last 3 options are ranked in my version instead of tied as in the approval system. Likewise, options 5-7 are also tied in the approval version, but ranked seperately in my version.


 * The option List of US Americans is in 5th place in my version, and ranked above options 6 and 7 because users have expressed an especial interest in that option, said interest not being represented in the purely (yes/no) system of pure approval voting.


 * Also, my version has a wider gap between 2nd and 3rd place, because the people voting for Option #2 were more likely to refer to it as the #1 choice, whereas Option #3 was not the first choice of any voter.


 * To sum this up, the primary (and perhaps only) difference between my version and approval voting is this: consider an approval vote where Option A received 10 votes and Option B received 10 votes and Option C received 0 votes. Obviously Option A and B are tied, and a runoff must be held. In my version, what if Option A was everybodys 1st choice (and thus has 30 points) and option B was everybodys 2nd choice (and thus has 20 points). In such a situation, my voting system does not result in a tie.

Susan Mason

Susan, I got a bit behind in following this page (which is practically a full-time job right now!) so forgive me if I have picked your name up where I maybe should be directing my comments to someone else. No matter: you are putting forward the most articulate and thoughtful case, so I'll stay with my miscasting (if that's what I did).

I'll try to offer a proper analysis a little later - I have to go and play cricket in a moment - but for now I'll just say that it all depends on who's "standard voting" we are talking about. Over here in Oz "standard voting" means preferential voting. In general, it is the fairest way of achieving a result. (At least the fairest way that I know of). I'll explain how it works, and compare it with the "Susan Mason Method" shortly. First, though, I'm off to play some cricket. Wish me luck! Tannin 07:05 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective on this issue. As I've noted before, and will again, wikipedia is not a democracy. In practice, people's votes do not count equally - many wikipedians will put more weight on the views of people they trust and respect. This means that it's not so much about the tallying method as it is about the ballots - how you encourage people to express their viewpoints. In essence, there are three ballots you can use: single vote (as used in first past the post), multiple vote (as used in approval voting, and preferential vote (as used in instant runoff voting, borda count, etc).

I think that single vote simply isn't expressive enough - in the example of the list of US people, quite a few people were happy with a number of options, and wanted to make that clear. I also think that single votes would discourage compromise, because people only express what they prefer most, not what they're happy with. Preference votes are, I feel, over complex for our needs. It's not immediately obvious which choice has the most support, and the lists are complicated by the addition of strange brackets and things. Also, I think it would discourage people from the current tradition of putting extra comments in brackets, and this makes it harder, not easier, to guage support.

Multiple votes (as in approval voting) are to my mind the ideal compromise between expressiveness and simplicity. It's generally easy to see which choice has the most support, and it requires no complex notation. On the other hand it adequately expresses the common situation - that there are options that one is happy with, and options that one would be unhappy with. If someone needs to express preferences, they can always do so with brackets - IE


 * list of Dominicans
 * Martin (strongly!)
 * list of Dominicans (country)
 * list of people from the Dominican Republic
 * Martin (acceptable)
 * Martin (acceptable)

I've used multiple votes in wikipedia a number of times and, to put it bluntly, they work. Nobody has ever expressed confusion at how to vote, or had a problem with working out the current "winner", or accused it of being undemocratic, or whatever. Why make things more complicated than they have to be? Martin

---

My version isn't complicated. Here is the above example translated into my version:


 * (2) list of Dominicans
 * Martin (2(1)-#2)
 * (0) list of Dominicans (country)
 * (1) list of people from the Dominican Republic
 * Martin (2(2)-#1)
 * Martin (2(2)-#1)

Susan Mason


 * *shrug* De gustibus non disputandem Martin

I think an inprovement on my version would be to allow the user to allocate 1-10 points for every vote he wishes to approve of. For example, I may wish to allocate 10 points to American Nationals but only 5 points to People from the USA' Susan Mason


 * A voting system also known as range voting, incidentally Martin

Use PR.STV to reach decision
Incorrect. (And BTW the House of Commons regrettably doesn't use PR.STV, which is why it was possible for Thatcher and Blair to win a massive majority on a minority vote, something deeply undemocratic.) PR.STV works for any number of winners, including one. All you would do here is have each person after their name list the temps and beside it their order of preference, eg

FearÉIREANN Temp 1: 1 Temp 2: 4  Temp 3: 3  Temp 4: 2

That means Temp 1 is my first choice. If it is not available, I would choose Temp 4. If it is not available Temp 3, and Temp 2 is my least favourite, which I am going all out to stop.

You use the Droop Quota to calculate a quota after all the voting is done. So if 20 people voted, and there is one result, you get

(20/2) +1 = 11.

So the quota is 11. You tot up all the number1s. If no temp gets 11 votes, you see which one of the temps got the lowest total. Say it was Temp 1 which got 4 votes. You look at those 4 votes, ignore their number 1 and look to see their number 2s. In my case my second choice was Temp 4. So in a second count, you exclude Temp 1 as it had the lowest vote, and redesignate its 4 votes based on the second preferences. Again if no one has 11 votes, you exlude the lowest, redesignate its votes. (If for the sake of argument, my second choice, Temp 4 had the lowest then. You look at my choices, and move my vote to the one I gave my number 3 to. In the third count you are left with two choices. The higher one wins.

For example: 1st Count Temp 3: 6 votes Temp 2: 5 votes Temp 4: 5 votes Temp 1: 4 votes

2nd Count Temp 3: (6 + 1) = 7 Temp 2: (5 + 2) = 7 Temp 4: (5 + 1) = 6 eliminated Temp 1

3rd Count Temp 3: (7 + 4) = 11 winner Temp 2: (7 + 2) = 9 Temp 4 Temp1

So in that example: Temp 3 is the choice which is most popular or least unpopular with everyone, earning it consensus acceptance. There is a methodology for dealing with draws - but it would be impractical on wiki. (How would you draw a name out of a hat? BTW the one drawn out is the loser not the winner, as you are presuming to be selecting the person to be eliminated, with the last person surviving, ie in the hat, being the winner!) If you had a draw, then everyone votes again from that point, ie, if the slatemate occured when there were three names left, you vote on those three names, the fourth is no longer on the ballot.

It is the most democratic method because it everyone gets to influence the winner. The election works on the principle - If you had to choose from the following four, which would you choose? If you had to choose from the following three, which would you pick? If you had to choose from two, which would you pick? If in my case my preferred option of 4 was the least popular, I get to choose from 3, if my choice then was least popular, I get to influence the choice of 2.

Doing lists like at the top of the page are indecisive and if I vote for the least popular option, I have no impact on the final result among the other options. Using a Single Transferable Vote, I get to influence the result every step of the way, even if it only at the end by using by vote against the one I least want, by voting for its rival in the last count.

It is dead easy to do, very simple to calculate and everyone gets to participate right to the end in reaching a decision. Nobody gets excluded. Everyone has a say every step of the way, right down to the end when the issue is, if you had to pick one of these two, which would you pick? In the case of JF or Oliver, as they intensely dislike Temp 1, even if their first choice lacks support, they can vote in a way which makes it difficult for Temp1 to win, their vote potentially helping every other option against it. FearÉIREANN 00:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * PR.STV is equivalent to instant-runoff voting (IRV) for single winner elections. IRV has a number of deficiencies which I really should get round to adding to the Wikipedia article on the subject. Hence, I feel it should be avoided. Martin 01:39 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

notification of votes

 * (regards talk:Main Page/layout discussion) I wonder how many Wikipedians know there is a vote going on.

It was advertised at the village pump, on recent changes, on list of ongoing votes, and on some relevant talk pages... but there's a limit to how much you can advertise before it's spam. :-/ Do you have any suggestions? Martin


 * My first reaction was 'the discussion page for the Main Page', but I checked and its been there all along. I must have missed it, although it is on my watch list. Still if I missed it many others will have too (I'm pretty much a wikiholic, though my attention is divided between en: and nl:). Its hard to keep track of everything thats going on. I follow Wikipedia-l and Wikitech daily, started to follow Village pump recently. Maybe the logo contest is a good example, that one is very hard to miss. It was on the announcements page as well. I agree that not every discussion that turns into a vote should be announced there or even shown prominently on the main page, but I think many people are interested in the content and layout of the Main Page (which is shown by the number of voters that did indeed find their way to your page), so maybe worth an announcement after all? Erik Zachte 10:44, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)