Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:29:16AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: >> http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=32 > > Interesting reading, although I don't know what I should make out of > this sentence: > > "What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first > choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though (453 of the > 488 total votes)." I think you missed a sentence; my reading of the relevant paragraph is "relatively few developers had multiple first-choice votes; thus, Table 1 has the 453/488 votes with only one first-choice vote." -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal." -- Abra Mitchell
Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
David Weinehall wrote: Interesting reading, although I don't know what I should make out of this sentence: "What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though (453 of the 488 total votes)." I'd say that 453 out of 488 is quite a lot, not relatively few, so something seems to be amiss here, huh? Good catch. Only 35 of the voters actually marked multiple choices. I've modified the text as follows: "Relatively few Debian developers did this though. Thus, Table 1 contains most of the voters (453 of the 488 total votes)." Thanks Rob
Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:29:16AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > Hi all, > > Being the election methods geek that I am, I decided to do some analysis > of the last DPL election. I've posted the results of this here: > > http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=32 [snip] Interesting reading, although I don't know what I should make out of this sentence: "What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though (453 of the 488 total votes)." I'd say that 453 out of 488 is quite a lot, not relatively few, so something seems to be amiss here, huh? Regards: David Weinehall -- /> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /> Northern lights wander <\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/
Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
Hi all, Being the election methods geek that I am, I decided to do some analysis of the last DPL election. I've posted the results of this here: http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=32 I ran through a few scenarios using Instant Runoff Voting to tally the votes instead of using Condorcet. The result depended on whether tied ballots are allowed. Allowing for tied ballots (and improvising a way to deal with them), Martin Michlmayr still wins the election. However, strictly following the rules that were just enacted in San Francisco for future mayorial elections, Branden Robinson would have won. At any rate, I'm not trying to kick up any dust or call the legitimate results into question. My take is that the analysis seem to further legitimize the results. Anyway, enjoy. Let me know if you have questions. Rob Lanphier http://electorama.com (not wearing his Helix Community hat this weekend)
