4,193
edits
Explicit approval voting: Difference between revisions
Renamed Category:Approval methods to Category:Approval voting
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (add wikipedia image) |
(Renamed Category:Approval methods to Category:Approval voting) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
[[File:2018 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ballot.png|thumb|An explicit approval ballot for a [[W:Wikipedia:Elections#Arbitration%20Committee|Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election]], which defaults to "Neutral" (abstention)]]
{{seealso|Approval voting}}
'''Explicit approval voting''' refers [[approval voting]] elections where the ballots allow for abstentions. To allow for this, an option is provided to explicitly state disapproval. So, the ballot will list ''Approve'' and ''Disapprove'' for each candidate (and may also have a ''Neutral'' option). Leaving a candidate without without "Approve" or "Disapprove" implies "Neutral" (and implies abstaining from voting). It is important to note, however, that this '''is not''' an example of Score Voting because it does not determine a winner by a simple sum of score values.
== Quorum ==
By itself, this rule leads to the possibility of an unknown dark horse candidate winning with only a few approve votes and many abstentions. This can be prevented through the use of various quorum rules,<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=Explicit Approval & Hybrid Approval voting|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/c6chef/explicit_approval_hybrid_approval_voting/|website=r/EndFPTP subreddit|access-date=2019-08-12|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Averaging|url=https://rangevoting.org/Averaging.html|website=RangeVoting.org|access-date=2019-08-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Better "Soft Quorum" Rule|url=https://rangevoting.org/BetterQuorum.html|website=RangeVoting.org|access-date=2019-08-12}}</ref> but hasn't seemed to be a problem in actual elections, despite abstention being common.
== Comparison ==
[[File:Approvalballotchoice.png|thumb|An explicit approval ballot on which the voter has not expressed any abstentions]]▼
While Explicit Approval and [[W:Combined approval voting|Combined Approval]] have equivalent ballots, they are not tallied the same. For example, if Candidate A received 5 Approvals and 5 Abstentions, while Candidate B received 9 Approvals and 1 Disapproval:▼
* Under Explicit Approval, Candidate A would win, with 5/(5+0) = 100% support, vs Candidate B's 9/(9+1) = 90% support.▼
* Under Combined Approval, Candidate B would win, with 9-1 = 8 points vs Candidate A's 5+0 = 5 points.▼
== Usage ==
[[Wikimedia explicit approval elections|Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections]] are held using an equivalent system, in which voters must choose ''Support'', ''Oppose'', or ''Neutral'' for every candidate.
▲Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using an equivalent system, in which voters must choose ''Support'', ''Oppose'', or ''Neutral'' for every candidate. The winner is the candidate with the highest support percentage: the highest proportion of ''Support'' votes out of combined ''Support'' and ''Oppose'' votes = S/(S+O).
[[w:Ballot initiative|Ballot initiative]]s and judicial [[w:retention election|retention election]]s are similar to Explicit Approval, in that voters may vote Yes, No, or abstain on each option, and they are passed/retained if the Y/(Y+N) ratio is greater than 50%. There is sometimes a quorum participation rule. For example, in [[Nebraska]], a ballot initiative must receive Yes or No votes from at least 35% of those who cast ballots in the general election (less than 65% abstention) to be valid.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Initiative Process 101|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-process-101.aspx|website=National Conference of State Legislatures|access-date=2019-11-23}}</ref>
Approval voting is generally equivalent to 2-level [[Score voting]] (where the levels are "0" and "1"). Wikimedia's variant is equivalent to 2-level Score voting where voters may explicitly abstain, and the default choice is to abstain. The levels in Wikimedia's system imply (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they may be affected by the psychological consequences of [[disapproval voting]].<ref>See also [[W:Combined approval voting#Properties|Wikipedia:Combined approval voting#Properties]], in particular [[W:Combined approval voting#cite%20ref-7|the Baujard citation]]</ref>▼
== Wikimedia elections ==
The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results 2013], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results 2015], and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results 2017], after previously using [[Approval voting]] and [[Schulze method]]. Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,<ref>[[W:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision%20process|w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process]]</ref> etc.▼
Many Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections using a form of explicit approval voting, where the winner is the candidate who has the highest approval among those who didn't abstain: A/(A+D)<ref name=":0" /> In these Wikimedia elections, the voters were asked to choose "Support", "Oppose", or ''"''Neutral" for every candidate. The winner is the candidate with the highest support percentage: the highest proportion of ''Support'' votes out of combined ''Support'' and ''Oppose'' votes = S/(S+O).[[File:2018 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ballot.png|thumb|An explicit approval ballot for a [[W:Wikipedia:Elections#Arbitration%20Committee|Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election]], which defaults to abstention]]
▲
===
▲The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results 2013], [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results 2015], and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results 2017], after previously using [[Approval voting]] and [[Schulze method]]
▲[[File:Approvalballotchoice.png|thumb|An explicit approval ballot on which the voter has not expressed any abstentions]]
If tallied using
In all 8 elections from 2013-2017, the most common vote was ''Neutral'', which was cast about twice as often as ''Support'', which in turn was cast about twice as often as ''Oppose''. Winners typically receive 70–85% support.
It has also been used for Steward elections since 2009 or earlier,<ref name="Meta 2009">{{cite web | title=Stewards/elections 2009/Statistics | website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki | date=2009-02-22 | url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/Statistics | access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref> with the current rules electing all candidates that receive at least 30 votes in favor and at least 80% support.<ref name="Meta">{{cite web | title=Stewards/Elections 2020/Statistics | website=Wikimedia Meta-Wiki | url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections_2020/Statistics | access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref>
▲While Explicit Approval and [[W:Combined approval voting|Combined Approval]] have equivalent ballots, they are not tallied the same. For example, if Candidate A received 5 Approvals and 5 Abstentions, while Candidate B received 9 Approvals and 1 Disapproval:
Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,<ref>[[W:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision%20process|w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process]]</ref> etc.
▲* Under Explicit Approval, Candidate A would win, with 5/(5+0) = 100% support, vs Candidate B's 9/(9+1) = 90% support.
▲* Under Combined Approval, Candidate B would win, with 9-1 = 8 points vs Candidate A's 5+0 = 5 points.
== Notes ==
One main reason that use of the [[Schulze method]] was discontinued may have been the near-unanimous support that candidates receive, since the elections may not have been sufficiently competitive to justify a more complex, majority rule-based voting method.
== References ==
<references />
[[Category:
| |||