Thanks David, It would be interesting to add nominations that were banned into the analysis. For all we know, somebody could have received 16/17 votes if they were in the ballot, but a single negative vote was enough to prevent that.
Could you add anonymized information about nominations that didn't make it into the ballot, and about the vetos that you received? Best, Gonzalo On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 at 1:58:48 PM UTC-3 David Roe wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:10 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: It's very important to note that with multiwinner approval voting, merely counting the votes per candidate and picking the top ones can lead to rather unfair results (unlike in the single winner case). For instance, if we elect k=3 candidates out of 6, say, $a,b,c,d,e,f$, and out of N=19 people, 10 vote for $a,b,c$, and 9 - for $d,e,f$, then, with approval voting, $a,b,c$ get elected (as $a,b,c$, get 10 votes each, more than $d,e,f$), and almost half the voters, 9 out of 10, get no representation of their views. This is obviously bad - in such a case a fair outcome would be something like $a,b,d$. Here "fair" has to be quantified, of course. I've posted some details (and pointed at some solutions) on this here: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501#issuecomment-2004121053 It would be interesting to get the anonymised returned ballots and see if we did well on this occasion. As well, adjustments ought to be made along the lines outlined above. The committee has agreed to release anonymized voting records, since the benefit gained for picking a better system for future votes outweighs the privacy risk (we've anonymized both voters and candidates). As I explained here <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501#issuecomment-2004649597>, if we had stuck with 5 people on the committee then different system would have had different results, but after extending to 6 based on the approval-voting tie there was broad agreement: Approval Voting, Proportional Approval Voting, Phragmén's sequential rule, Maximin Support and Equal Shares all selected the current committee; only Minimax approval voting had a different result. The anonymized votes are here <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12kbJepIKLpLKwLDum70FsSkqTto2St5gbspf3DyrPIc/edit?usp=sharing>, in case anyone wants to do further analysis. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/1518a6dc-01e1-444e-87f7-95a6b244f106n%40googlegroups.com.
