Wikimedia explicit approval elections: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Split from Explicit approval) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | 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 abstention]] |
Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using a voting system equivalent to [[Explicit approval voting]], 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).[[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]] |
||
'''Explicit approval''' voting is a [[Ratings ballot|rated voting system]] which is essentially [[Approval voting]] with abstentions. In order to allow abstention, voters must explicitly state disapproval. So, the ballot will list ''Approve'' and ''Disapprove'' for each candidate, and leaving a candidate without either mark represents abstention. The winner is the candidate who has the highest approval among those who didn't abstain: A/(A+D)<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> |
|||
By itself, this 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" /><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. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
''This should be split into an article like the others in [[:Category:Rated method elections]]'' |
|||
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). |
|||
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> |
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> |
||
== Results == |
|||
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]]. |
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]]. After that, it was replaced by STV with Droop quota and Meeks method. |
||
| ⚫ | If tallied using [[score voting]] rules (i.e. using "[[combined approval voting]]", where oppose equals "−1", neutral equals "0", and support equals "+1"), 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. |
||
=== Analysis === |
|||
[[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. |
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. |
|||
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. |
|||
* Under Combined Approval, Candidate B would win, with 9-1 = 8 points vs Candidate A's 5+0 = 5 points. |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
<references /> |
<references /> |
||
[[Category:Cardinal voting methods]] |
|||
[[Category:Rated method elections]] |
[[Category:Rated method elections]] |
||
Latest revision as of 20:19, 26 April 2024
Wikimedia and Wikipedia elections are held using a voting system equivalent to Explicit approval voting, 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).
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.[1]
Results
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. After that, it was replaced by STV with Droop quota and Meeks method.
If tallied using score voting rules (i.e. using "combined approval voting", where oppose equals "−1", neutral equals "0", and support equals "+1"), 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.
It has also been used for Steward elections since 2009 or earlier,[2] with the current rules electing all candidates that receive at least 30 votes in favor and at least 80% support.[3]
Wikipedia uses this in a non-binding way for Administrator nominations,[4] etc.
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
- ↑ See also Wikipedia:Combined approval voting#Properties, in particular the Baujard citation
- ↑ "Stewards/elections 2009/Statistics". Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. 2009-02-22. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
- ↑ "Stewards/Elections 2020/Statistics". Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
- ↑ w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Decision process