WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
→False Claim in Ballot Instructions and Remedy: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==Archival of election material== |
==Archival of election material== |
||
all material that has been used in elections should be archived. i raised this concern previously https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1187066048#Why_can_election_material_be_deleted_after_elections%EF%BC%9F . you can see the result of deletion of election material, a red link in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ACE2022&oldid=1124416539 . this is bad for scrutiny of election and detrimental to integrity of election. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|talk]]) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
all material that has been used in elections should be archived. i raised this concern previously https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1187066048#Why_can_election_material_be_deleted_after_elections%EF%BC%9F . you can see the result of deletion of election material, a red link in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ACE2022&oldid=1124416539 . this is bad for scrutiny of election and detrimental to integrity of election. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|talk]]) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
== False Claim in Ballot Instructions and Remedy == |
|||
I am aware the issue below has been raised in the past. Like the [[Monty Hall problem|Monty Hall problem,]] I believe it is easily and commonly misunderstood. |
|||
The ballot instructions include a '''false claim:''' “A 'neutral' vote does not affect the outcome.” (See also fix at end.) |
|||
A "neutral" vote for any single candidate is one of three [[Mutual exclusivity|mutually exclusive]] choices presented to the voter, each of which uniquely affects the [[probability]] of that candidate winning, and therefore affects the outcome of the election. |
|||
'''Definitive counterexample, with candidates A, B, and C, and 5 voters:''' |
|||
Candidate A is supported by 3 voters and opposed by 2, yielding 60% support. |
|||
Candidate B is supported by 2 voters and opposed by 3, yielding 40% support. |
|||
Candidate C is supported by 1 voter and opposed by 1, yielding 50% support (while 3 voters are neutral). |
|||
Consider any one of the 3 voters who initially chooses to give C a neutral vote. When that voter changes their vote for candidate C, from "support" to "neutral" to "oppose", the percentage of support changes from 67% to 50% to 33%, respectively. As a result, candidate C changes from 1st place, to 2nd place, to the 3rd-place winner. It cannot be said that only the voter's choice of a "neutral" vote for candidate C does not affect the outcome of the election, when that vote leads to a unique outcome. |
|||
'''Accurate Model''' |
|||
An [[election]] chooses certain candidates at the ''exclusion'' of others. It does not merely report the absolute scores of individual candidates. |
|||
More formally, the election receives as input ballots from N voters each with 3<sup>C</sup> possible combinations of markings, and outputs an ordered list of winners. When we speak of the outcome of the election to the individual voter, we must adhere to the correct mathematical model to make true statements. |
|||
'''Easy Mistakes''' |
|||
''I. Default Fallacy'' |
|||
A default choice is still a choice, otherwise it could not be changed (but it can). |
|||
''II. Magic Formula Fallacy'' |
|||
It is irrelevant whether "neutral" appears in either formula: support / (support + oppose), or the simpler formula: support - oppose. Why? Because a "neutral" vote still results in a distinctly lower score than "support", and a distinctly higher score than "oppose". |
|||
Quick proof by counterexample: Consider a rating ballot “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor” with scoring formula: (0 x “Good”) + (-1 x “Fair”) + (-2 x “Poor”). Notice “Good” is completely ignored (i.e., absent). Nonetheless, a “Good” vote helps a candidate win. |
|||
''III. Null Ballot Fallacy'' |
|||
Whether casting all "neutral" votes has ''the same'' ''affect'' as not submitting a ballot, tells us nothing about whether the choice to give an individual candidate a "neutral" vote has ''no effect at all.'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" role="presentation" |
|||
|(See related red herrings.) |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
(We need not answer the philosophical question as to whether abstaining from an election effects the outcome, as occurred when protest voters boycotted the second round of the [[2012 Egyptian presidential election|2012 Egyptian presidential election.]] Of course, adding and removing voters from an election can affect the outcome. But that has no bearing on claims about what happens when a real voter chooses among mutually exclusive ratings for a candidate on their ballot, each of which uniquely affects the probability of the candidate winning.) |
|||
(Whether casting all "support" or all "oppose" could change the election outcome is a [[red herring]], and is never true unless at least one voter first casts a ballot with one or more distinguishing "neutral" votes. Regardless, idiosyncratic characteristics of "support" or "oppose" votes do not necessarily authorize any truth claims about "neutral" votes.) |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Harm Done?''' |
|||
Suppose voter 1 supports candidate A and opposes candidate B, while voter 2 support's only candidate B. If voter 2 leaves the default "neutral" vote for candidate A , rather than "oppose" A, their preferred candidate B loses the election. This result is akin to a violation of the [[Later-no-harm criterion|later-no-harm criterion.]] |
|||
By telling the voter a "neutral" vote has no affect on the outcome, this could discourage them from making a definitive judgement call as to whether they support or oppose the election of each candidate. |
|||
But whether or not it can be proven that voters are harmed by the instructions, they can be, and I think it is not a good idea to make false claims in Wikipedia election procedures, regardless. |
|||
If a "neutral" vote did not affect the outcome of the election, I conjecture this election method would be used ubiquitously worldwide, and [[Gibbard's theorem|strategic voting]] would be definitively solved, from a long time ago. |
|||
'''Possible Remedy''' |
|||
An example of a true statement we could make: |
|||
Please use the radio buttons to indicate which candidates you “support”, “oppose”, or hold a “neutral” position, regarding their election. Candidates receiving a higher percentage of support are elected. A “neutral” vote leaves the percentage of support for a candidate unchanged. |
|||
[[User:Filingpro|Filingpro]] ([[User talk:Filingpro|talk]]) 07:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:11, 1 December 2023
2023 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 04:21 (UTC), Thursday, 30 May 2024 (
)
- Thank you for participating in the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
- You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.
Clearer summary of implications
i wasnt aware until today that elected members become checkusers. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee has no mention of this implication either. it's only implied by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight ("While most current and some former arbitrators hold CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions") and some sentences after long passages on Wikipedia:CheckUser.
i always had the impression or assumption from real life that arbitrators are third-party members of the public (maybe like a jury or lay judges), and not members of law enforcement or judiciary. i thought they're users elected to exercise independent judgement of sysops' and checkusers' actions, but didnt know they would become the checkusers themselves.
you could probably do a survey to see how many voters are aware. i've already voted in 2021 and 2022 elections. i became aware because only by chance i noticed a user was checkuser but i had no memory of a checkuser election of that user, then i dug further to find out the appointment logs on meta.
all implications of successful election should be made more prominent and communicated to voters.--RZuo (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the main purpose of giving them CheckUser rights is so that they can check up on the CheckUsers (i.e., to deter and detect any abuse by CUs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Archival of election material
all material that has been used in elections should be archived. i raised this concern previously https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1187066048#Why_can_election_material_be_deleted_after_elections%EF%BC%9F . you can see the result of deletion of election material, a red link in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ACE2022&oldid=1124416539 . this is bad for scrutiny of election and detrimental to integrity of election. RZuo (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
False Claim in Ballot Instructions and Remedy
I am aware the issue below has been raised in the past. Like the Monty Hall problem, I believe it is easily and commonly misunderstood.
The ballot instructions include a false claim: “A 'neutral' vote does not affect the outcome.” (See also fix at end.)
A "neutral" vote for any single candidate is one of three mutually exclusive choices presented to the voter, each of which uniquely affects the probability of that candidate winning, and therefore affects the outcome of the election.
Definitive counterexample, with candidates A, B, and C, and 5 voters:
Candidate A is supported by 3 voters and opposed by 2, yielding 60% support.
Candidate B is supported by 2 voters and opposed by 3, yielding 40% support.
Candidate C is supported by 1 voter and opposed by 1, yielding 50% support (while 3 voters are neutral).
Consider any one of the 3 voters who initially chooses to give C a neutral vote. When that voter changes their vote for candidate C, from "support" to "neutral" to "oppose", the percentage of support changes from 67% to 50% to 33%, respectively. As a result, candidate C changes from 1st place, to 2nd place, to the 3rd-place winner. It cannot be said that only the voter's choice of a "neutral" vote for candidate C does not affect the outcome of the election, when that vote leads to a unique outcome.
Accurate Model
An election chooses certain candidates at the exclusion of others. It does not merely report the absolute scores of individual candidates.
More formally, the election receives as input ballots from N voters each with 3C possible combinations of markings, and outputs an ordered list of winners. When we speak of the outcome of the election to the individual voter, we must adhere to the correct mathematical model to make true statements.
Easy Mistakes
I. Default Fallacy
A default choice is still a choice, otherwise it could not be changed (but it can).
II. Magic Formula Fallacy
It is irrelevant whether "neutral" appears in either formula: support / (support + oppose), or the simpler formula: support - oppose. Why? Because a "neutral" vote still results in a distinctly lower score than "support", and a distinctly higher score than "oppose".
Quick proof by counterexample: Consider a rating ballot “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor” with scoring formula: (0 x “Good”) + (-1 x “Fair”) + (-2 x “Poor”). Notice “Good” is completely ignored (i.e., absent). Nonetheless, a “Good” vote helps a candidate win.
III. Null Ballot Fallacy
Whether casting all "neutral" votes has the same affect as not submitting a ballot, tells us nothing about whether the choice to give an individual candidate a "neutral" vote has no effect at all.
(See related red herrings.) |
(We need not answer the philosophical question as to whether abstaining from an election effects the outcome, as occurred when protest voters boycotted the second round of the 2012 Egyptian presidential election. Of course, adding and removing voters from an election can affect the outcome. But that has no bearing on claims about what happens when a real voter chooses among mutually exclusive ratings for a candidate on their ballot, each of which uniquely affects the probability of the candidate winning.) (Whether casting all "support" or all "oppose" could change the election outcome is a red herring, and is never true unless at least one voter first casts a ballot with one or more distinguishing "neutral" votes. Regardless, idiosyncratic characteristics of "support" or "oppose" votes do not necessarily authorize any truth claims about "neutral" votes.) |
Harm Done?
Suppose voter 1 supports candidate A and opposes candidate B, while voter 2 support's only candidate B. If voter 2 leaves the default "neutral" vote for candidate A , rather than "oppose" A, their preferred candidate B loses the election. This result is akin to a violation of the later-no-harm criterion.
By telling the voter a "neutral" vote has no affect on the outcome, this could discourage them from making a definitive judgement call as to whether they support or oppose the election of each candidate.
But whether or not it can be proven that voters are harmed by the instructions, they can be, and I think it is not a good idea to make false claims in Wikipedia election procedures, regardless.
If a "neutral" vote did not affect the outcome of the election, I conjecture this election method would be used ubiquitously worldwide, and strategic voting would be definitively solved, from a long time ago.
Possible Remedy
An example of a true statement we could make:
Please use the radio buttons to indicate which candidates you “support”, “oppose”, or hold a “neutral” position, regarding their election. Candidates receiving a higher percentage of support are elected. A “neutral” vote leaves the percentage of support for a candidate unchanged.