Difference between revisions of "User:RobLa/Debian2003"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
A little visual cleanup in VisualEditor
(Updated a couple links and a couple of headers)
(A little visual cleanup in VisualEditor)
''Posted Apr 20, 2003 - 01:47 AM by robla''
 
The last [http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0001 Debian Project Leader election] was a very close one. Martin Michlmayr won a [[wikipedia:Condorcet's method|Condorcet-tallied election]] in a very close race between him, Bdale Garbee (the incumbent), and Branden Robinson. Doing analysis on these result yields some interesting observations. Among the most surprising is that Branden Robinson would have won had [http://archive.fairvote.org/library/statutes/sfleg.htm San Francisco's rules for Instant Runoff Voting] been used.<br />I can't say I'm very close to the Debian development process. I used to use a Debian box as my primary home desktop, I wrote one of the scripts that are used to tally the elections, and Electorama is run from a Debian-based ISP. However, I can't say I'm very familiar with the individual candidates and the differences in their platforms. The conclusions I draw below are drawn from the data itself, and not from any insight (or lack thereof) in any external factors.<br />First, I set about creating a table of first place voters, and what their second choice was. What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though. Thus, Table 1 contains most of the voters (453 of the 488 total votes). (Please pardon my informality in referring to the candidates by first name...it's not that I'm all chummy with any of them, it's just that they were generally easier to spell/remember than their last names) :-)
<br />
I can't say I'm very close to the Debian development process. I used to use a Debian box as my primary home desktop, I wrote one of the scripts that are used to tally the elections, and Electorama is run from a Debian-based ISP. However, I can't say I'm very familiar with the individual candidates and the differences in their platforms. The conclusions I draw below are drawn from the data itself, and not from any insight (or lack thereof) in any external factors.<br />
 
 
First, I set about creating a table of first place voters, and what their second choice was. What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though. Thus, Table 1 contains most of the voters (453 of the 488 total votes). (Please pardon my informality in referring to the candidates by first name...it's not that I'm all chummy with any of them, it's just that they were generally easier to spell/remember than their last names) :-)
 
=== Table 1: Voters with one first choice, and what their second choice was ===
 
 
=== Table 2: Voters with multiple first choice ===
 
 
{|
| '''Multiple firsts'''
|}
 
Not much to say here really, since it's such a small set of voters. Moreover, all three pairings of top candidates appear in roughly equal numbers, with a handful of uncommon combinations.<br />Where things start getting interesting is where you start looking at how the election would have gone had it been tallied using [https://web.archive.org/web/20050420042943/http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Instant-runoff voting]. First, we'll look at the results as tallied allowing for ballots with tied preferences (Table 3).
<br />
 
 
Not much to say here really, since it's such a small set of voters. Moreover, all three pairings of top candidates appear in roughly equal numbers, with a handful of uncommon combinations.<br />
 
 
Where things start getting interesting is where you start looking at how the election would have gone had it been tallied using [https://web.archive.org/web/20050420042943/http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Instant-runoff voting]. First, we'll look at the results as tallied allowing for ballots with tied preferences (Table 3).
 
<br />
 
 
'''Table 3: IRV Tally, allowing for ballots with tied preferences'''<br />
 
 
=== '''Table 3: IRV Tally, allowing for ballots with tied preferences'''<br />===
{|
| <br />
Following through on the recommendations there, we get the results as described in Table 4.
 
=== '''Table 4: IRV Tally, using technique implemented in San Francisco'''<br />===
<br />
 
 
'''Table 4: IRV Tally, using technique implemented in San Francisco'''<br />
 
 
{|
| <br />
|}
 
<br />Using these rules, Branden Robinson wins the election. However, this is because of a bit of a quirk in the rules. In the event of a last-place tie, both candidates are eliminated (even in this case where this represents a majority of the votes). All it takes is to remove one ballot to completely change the result of the election. For example, let's remove the ballot expressed in the posted results as &quot;V: 41325&quot;. Expanded out, this is the list of preferences expressed:
<br />
 
 
Using these rules, Branden Robinson wins the election. However, this is because of a bit of a quirk in the rules. In the event of a last-place tie, both candidates are eliminated (even in this case where this represents a majority of the votes). All it takes is to remove one ballot to completely change the result of the election. For example, let's remove the ballot expressed in the posted results as &quot;V: 41325&quot;. Expanded out, this is the list of preferences expressed:
 
# Bdale Garbee
Table 5 shows the results of such an election.
 
=== '''Table 5: IRV Tally minus Bdale/Martin/Branden/Moshe vote'''<br />===
<br />
 
 
'''Table 5: IRV Tally minus Bdale/Martin/Branden/Moshe vote'''<br />
 
 
{|
| <br />
|}
 
<br />By breaking the tie in the third round, Martin Michlmayr narrowly avoids getting knocked out of the third round, and goes on to beat Branden Robinson in the fourth round. This despite the fact that the ballot eliminated actually ranks Martin Michlmayr ''higher'' than Branden Robinson.
<br />
 
 
By breaking the tie in the third round, Martin Michlmayr narrowly avoids getting knocked out of the third round, and goes on to beat Branden Robinson in the fourth round. This despite the fact that the ballot eliminated actually ranks Martin Michlmayr ''higher'' than Branden Robinson.
 
Of course, this cuts both ways. Eliminating a different ballot yields yet another result. Let's eliminate a ballot marked &quot;V: 43215&quot; instead, which is equivalent to the following preferences:
Table 6 shows the new results
 
=== '''Table 6: IRV Tally minus Martin/Bdale/Branden/Moshe vote'''<br />===
<br />
 
 
'''Table 6: IRV Tally minus Martin/Bdale/Branden/Moshe vote'''<br />
 
 
{|
| <br />
|}
 
<br />This time, the third round tie is broken, instead going in favor of Bdale Garbee. Now it's Bdale Garbee who avoids getting knocked out of the third round, and goes on to beat Branden Robinson in the fourth round. Once again, this is despite the fact that the ballot eliminated actually ranks Bdale Garbee ''higher'' than Branden Robinson.
<br />
 
 
This time, the third round tie is broken, instead going in favor of Bdale Garbee. Now it's Bdale Garbee who avoids getting knocked out of the third round, and goes on to beat Branden Robinson in the fourth round. Once again, this is despite the fact that the ballot eliminated actually ranks Bdale Garbee ''higher'' than Branden Robinson.
 
I'd appreciate someone checking my work. I did a lot of this only semi-automatically, constructing kludgy little command lines involving perl, cut, grep, and wc. I've tried to be reasonably careful, but this is clearly a dangling chad kinda situation.
Bureaucrats, Confirmed users, Administrators
2,127
edits
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Navigation menu