[MathSoc Council] Exact Word of Motions for Elections Policy Change
scshunt at csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Wed Oct 16 11:55:13 EDT 2013
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Febrian Sidharta <fsidhart at uwaterloo.ca>wrote:
> MOTION 2:
> BIRT Mathsoc Policy 1. Elections Procedure Part 1.5.6 Resolution to be
> replaced from:
> The elections shall be resolved through the Schulze STV Method, as
> described by Martin Schulze
> in the 2011 paper Free Riding and Vote Management under Proportional
> Representation by the
> Single Transferable Vote. The Schulze STV Method generates an ordered
> ranking of all possible
> sets of candidates of size equal to the number of available seats. For
> each term, the highest set
> in the ranking containing only candidates eligible for that term shall be
> the winning set; in the
> event of multiple such sets, if any are disquali fied (per the de finition
> in the paper) by other such
> sets ranked equally, then they shall be discarded. If there are still
> multiple sets remaining, then
> the winning set shall be selected by use of the tiebreaking vote; the sets
> shall be ordered by the
> tiebreaking vote, and then the first set in lexicographic order under the
> tiebreaking vote shall be
> the winning set.
> The elections shall be resolved through the BC STV Method.
> For each term, candidates that are not eligible for that term shall be
> excluded from calculation.
> For election for single seat, if there is a candidate that gathers the
> majority of the highest ranked votes, the candidate shall be elected; if
> there is no such candidate, the candidate with the lowest amount of votes
> shall be excluded from the calculation and their vote shall be distributed
> to the next highest ranked candidate in the vote. This method shall be
> repeated until there is a candidate with the majority of the votes.
> For elections of multiple seats, the quota to be elected is number of
> votes/(number of seats available + 1). If there is a candidate that gather
> more votes than the aforementioned quota, the candidate shall be elected
> and their votes' weight shall be discounted to 1 - quota/(elected
> candidate's number of votes) and redistributed to the next highest ranked
> candidate in the vote; if there is no such candidate, candidate with lowest
> amount of votes shall be excluded from the calculation and their vote shall
> be distributed to the next highest ranked candidate in the vote without any
> discount. This method shall be repeated until all seats are filled or there
> is equal number of candidates with seats available.
> Should there be a tie, the highest ranked candidate in the tiebreaking
> vote shall be elected.
I will not be able to make it to the meeting tonight, so I will trust
Council's judgment in its decision on these motions. However, I do have one
particular concern. One of the design goals of the current system was to
never produce a result where two different people won for different terms,
as can happen with this proposed system:
Suppose that A, B, and C are candidates for President. A is graduating, so
is only running for Winter. B and C are not, and are running for Winter,
Spring, and Fall.
There are 20 votes for: A > B > C
There are 20 votes for: C > B > A
There are 10 votes for: B > C > A
In this case, for the Winter term, all three candidates are eligible. B is
eliminated on the first ballot. His 10 votes go to C, who wins with a
majority of 30 votes.
For the Spring and Fall terms, A is not running, so votes for A are
discarded, and then B has 30 votes on the first ballot and wins.
Under the current procedure, this scenario is impossible (and in fact B
would win all three terms).
I'll be on the mailing list all day in case anyone has other questions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Council