Explicit approval voting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
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>.
This is mathematically equivalent to 2-level [[Score voting]] with averaging, though the abstain votes are explicit rather than implicit, and the levels are essentially (−1, +1) rather than (0, 1), so they are affected by the psychological consequences of [[disapproval voting]].
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.
= 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
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
= References =
| |||