Explicit approval voting: Difference between revisions
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Made changes to reflect conversation with User:Psephomancy on Talk:S/(S+O)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using a [[Ratings ballot|rated voting 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 = <math>S \over S+O</math>. |
Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using a [[Ratings ballot|rated voting 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 = <math>S \over S+O</math>. |
||
This is |
This is somewhat similar to 2-level [[Score voting]] with averaging, though the abstain votes are explicit rather than implicit. The levels 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> |
||
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. |
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. |
||
Revision as of 22:11, 30 November 2018
Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using a rated voting 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 = .
This is somewhat similar to 2-level Score voting with averaging, though the abstain votes are explicit rather than implicit. The levels imply (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they may be affected by the psychological consequences of disapproval voting.[1]
The Wikimedia Foundation has used this method for Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination Committee elections in 2013, 2015, and 2017, after previously using Approval voting and Schulze method. Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,[2] etc.
Analysis
If tallied using normal Score voting rules (where O=0, N=1, S=2), the 2015 Wikimedia Board election would have had a different winner, with the candidate in 4th place moving up to 2nd. The 2017 Board and 2015 FDC elections would have had a different top-3 order, but the same 3 candidates would have won.
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.