Yes IRV is what I was referring to when I write ranked choice vote. If that's the approach that Apache favors / supports, then it sounds good to me.
As I mentioned today in the other thread, I think it is generally better if we can avoid multiple choice votes. But when it makes sense, then IRV seems right to me. I think it also could be reasonable to start out with an initial vote of just simple one option selection, i.e. non-transferrable vote and majority wins. And then if it's close, anybody can request we do IRV. The reason for this is it might not be close enough to matter and it's simpler to not do IRV. But I think we should not allow voting for multiple options because it's confusing, hard to reason about, and as mentioned in the original message of this thread, you may be unwittingly voting against your interest. So my proposal I think would be the following two provisions: 1. For multiple choice votes we have two options: a. simple majority vote, each voter gets one non-transferrable vote, and cannot select multiple options b. IRV 2. The person calling the vote can choose which voting approach to use. If simple vote is chosen, any community member eligible to vote can request changing to IRV for any reason. On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:02 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh absolutely - sorry I missed it :) > > Actually I started to do research and write my response before you > responded - so the issue is that I did not have a chance to read your > message :) ... Awfully sorry for that Amogh... Mental note to myself - good > thing to read the new answers before you press send on yours ;) > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:54 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:50 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Yeah, I was proposing Instant Runoff earlier when I said this: > >> > >> > I would second Daniel to have a rank based voting for ballots which > can > >> have multiple choice: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting > >> . > >> > > > > Oh absolutely - sorry I missed it :) - there were too many emails in the > > thread to read this morning and I simply missed yours, sorry Amogh. And I > > picked my proposal even without realising you had the same proposal - > > which might mean it is a really good idea :) > > > > And one more comment: > > > > > I don’t necessarily think this is a bad outcome. Those 5 people also > > believe A is a good idea, just not as good as B. > > > > Yes. I agree with Wei Lee here. It's not a bad outcome. It's SOME > outcome. > > It has some properties (and also some social aspects to it - like people > > are less likely to put -1 even if they do not agree with something and > few > > other things. Again - it disregards individual voting power of a single > > person (if the voting power is something we seek as desired property), it > > focuses more on the single option support, not whether one person has > > always the same "strength" of their vote. It assumes that we have > > collaborating people who will not seek to 'play" the system but simply > > state their preferences. It's not tamper-proof and if we have bad > players, > > they can definitely abuse it. > > > > So yes - if we are at the stage where we are concerned about bad actors > > trying to play the system to their advantage, then yes, we should choose > a > > system that is tamper proof. To be honest that never occured to me in the > > past that we are at this stage, but it's a good idea anyway. > > >
