Re: [RFC] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs
| From: | Larry Garfield | Date: | Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:42:02 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-128211@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, at 4:13 AM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 2025-07-23 16:05, schrieb Larry Garfield:
>> The only thing I'd add is that in the case of multi-option secondary
>> votes, STV/RCV also be explicitly allowed. (Rank first, second, third,
>> etc.). (I'm aware the mechanism for STV is kinda clunky on the wiki
>> right now, but we know how to make it work.) Perhaps even encouraged
>> if "do nothing" is not one of the options.
>
> I meant to allow any alternative forms of “majority” with the:
>
>> The interpretation of the result of a secondary vote, necessary
>> threshold(s), and tie-breakers MUST be defined at the start of the
>> voting period.
>
> rule, but it certainly makes sense to spell this out explicitly. I've
> opted to only allow STV, because that's what is established in the
> project, so participants already know how it works.
Just to clarify here, Single Transferable Vote and Ranked Choice Voting are the same thing. I think
it's just another Ameircan-vs-British English question. :-)
> Find the changes in the following commit:
> Tou3}
> Ohttps://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/0d8eaf048f9a998bcc7bf6a8c696ba5452a255ae
:thumbs up emoji:
>> An example of both up/down and either/or secondary votes would also be
>> helpful.
>
> I have added an example for a plurality vote in
>
> https://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/de94b7a132c4a74e54e7848914203f1849231697.
>
> I am having trouble with phrasing an example for a non-plurality vote
> that doesn't get complicated. If you have a suggestion, I'm happy to
> add
> it. But a secondary vote with a 2/3 majority should already be known
> from a primary vote and it's always necessary to clearly specify how
> the
> results of secondary votes are interpreted for an individual vote.
>
> Best regards
> Tim Düsterhus
How about this, as a following paragraph:
As an STV example, a secondary vote using STV and having 5 "Foo", 4 "Bar", 8
"Baz", and 9 "Abstain" first-choice votes has no majority, so will go to a
second round. "Bar" will be eliminated and those votes redistributed to second-choice
options. If for example the second round result is 6 "Foo", 9 "Baz", and 11
"Abstain", then Baz will have won as it has a clear majority of non-Abstain votes cast.
--Larry Garfield