Talk:Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Elections/Results

Request for ballot exhaustion statistics

On the elections page, it was recommended that voters should rank at least seven candidates, and it was noted that it is better to rank further candidates as further rankings could still influence the election. It was also stated that "Beyond 15 candidates, the probability of influencing the final result is small. If you want, you can skip the rest." Now that the results have been announced and it is visible how spread out the votes were over the high number of candidates, and considering the high number of rounds in the tally, I am wondering how true that statement is. Would it be possible to see the number of ballots ranking each number of candidates as well as what number of ballots ran out of ranked candidates before the tally was over? If the number is high, is there any way to know if it would have influenced the election? Finally, congratulations to all of the elected candidates! I am excited for the future of the Movement Charter. NK1406 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@NK1406: Assuming I didn't make any mistakes in the quick script I did for this, the following is the number of ballots that ran out / the total ballots, for each number of candidates ranked: For those votes with only 1 candidate ranked: 87 / 126 ran out; 2: 50 / 89; 3: 36 / 102; 4: 20 / 80; 5: 15 / 67; 6: 13 / 53; 7: 24 / 134; 8: 7 / 60; 9: 2 / 32; 10: 5 / 54; 11: 2 / 23; 12: 1 / 15; 13: 1 / 18; 14: 0 / 32; 15: 0 / 23; 16: 0 / 14; 17: 0 / 9; 18: 1 / 8; 19: 0 / 3; 20: 0 / 5; 21: 0 / 2; 22: 0 / 5; 23: 0 / 6; 24: 0 / 2; 25: 0 / 5; 26: 0 / 2; 27: 0 / 2; 28: 0 / 6; 29: 0 / 2; 30: 0 / 3; 31: 0 / 3; 33: 0 / 2; 36: 0 / 1; 40: 0 / 1; 41: 0 / 1; 48: 0 / 1; 49: 0 / 1; 50: 0 / 2; 51: 0 / 1; 53: 0 / 1; 54: 0 / 4; 66: 0 / 1; 69: 0 / 3; 70: 0 / 14. --Yair rand (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Thank you! Based on this information, it looks like 15 candidates was a good recommendation. In addition, I was thinking that there would be a cluster around 15 candidates because of the recommendation, but this did not happen as the number of ballots decreased fairly monotonically, which is also a reasonable expectation. 24.220.234.172 18:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding to my previous comment, I find it interesting that 126 people (about 12.4%) only ranked one candidate, and 651 people (about 63.9%) ranked seven or fewer candidates. I would also like to point out that there was indeed a peak at 7 candidates. Also, that previous IP comment was me, who forgot to log in using a different computer. NK1406 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

0 votes

How is it possible that one candidate received 0 votes when I ranked everyone when I voted? Vexations (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It means that nobody ranked them as their first option. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That was a pretty dumb question. LAM Thanks, Vexations (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Cap, round 43

Quota: 91.665504

Elected:
Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom) (meeting the quota)
Richard (Nosebagbear) (due to implementation of project cap)
Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan) (due to implementation of project cap)
Ciell (Ciell) (due to implementation of project cap)

Eliminated:
Tito Dutta (Titodutta) (eliminated due to implementation of 2 candidates per project cap met for English Wikipedia)

The bold text seems to be inserted manually. Were they really needed? Tito Dutta (Titodutta) has the lowest votes and would have been eliminated naturally even if there was no cap. The same is true about Richard (Nosebagbear), Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan), and Ciell (Ciell) all of which are natural winners, not due to cap. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this observation. As Tito was at that point the lowest-placed of 8 candidates, with 7 spaces, Richard, Ravan and Ciell were elected even without the application of the cap. The cap also would not apply until Richard was elected (though even if Richard was declared elected and then Tito was eliminated due to the cap, then the result would of course be the same).

Rounds 39, 40, 41

What does exactly happen in these consecutive rounds? None of the candidates get eliminated nor elected! 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello KTC, do you know the answer of the question? 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I wasn't involved in this, but I should be able to help clarify a little. In R38, Alice was elected so in R39 Alice plus the other 2 that have also been elected has surplus votes for them redistrubted. At the end of that, Michał didn't have enough votes to meet quota so wasn't elected. At the other end, Reda had 0.704267 votes less than Ravan. But if you look at the votes of those that have been elected, they're all above (both the new and old) quota because when redistrubting some of Alice's would had gone to Richard & Anne, some of Richard's gone to Alice and Anne, and some of Anne's gone to Alice and Richard. The total amount they are over the current quota is 10.047923 votes, way more than enough for Reda to potentially overtake Ravan depending on how that surplus are redistrubuted, so those surplus votes get redistrubted first. The same process repeats in R40 - 3.20758 is greater than 0.826335; R41 - 1.028552 is greater than 0.870158. When we get to R42, the surplus is only 0.327887 whereas the difference between Ravan and Reda is 0.883826. There's no way for Reda to overtake Ravan at this point, so Reda is eliminated here. Hope THat helps. -- KTC (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@KTC: Thanks for your excellent explanation above. I have another (maybe dumb) question.

In R36, where do 1.647823 and 5.284165 (votes subtracted from elected candidates Risker and Pharos) come from?

I mean, in R34, I understand where 4.874999 (votes subtracted from elected candidate Pharos) comes from: it's the difference between quota and Pharos's votes in the previous round (R33), but I can't understand where the above-mentioned numbers come from.

Thank you very much for your time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: It's not a single value. It's the sum of the votes being taken away because of surplus redistribution and the surplus from others that was redistributed to them. In R34, only Pharos has surplus votes for redistribution after R33, so the total number of new votes he got must be the surplus that's being taken away from him, taking him exactly to the previous quota. In R36, both Pharos and Risker had surplus being redistributed after R35, with 5.512136375 surplus for Pharos and 2.333265375 for Risker. So when it says Pharos had -5.284165 redistributed votes and Risker -1.647823, what it's saying is that Pharos had -5.512136375 (surplus last round) + 0.227971375 (from Risker) = -5.284165 votes. Similar for Risker with 0.685442375 from Pharos. -- KTC (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)