Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Methods: Difference between revisions
Update internal links after move to dedicated Voting portal |
Shorten intros per Theo's 20s rule |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{KidsIntro| | {{KidsIntro|Most decisions need no vote: people try things, undo mistakes and talk. But when a big question needs a vote, there are many ways to count. Sometimes the biggest pile of hands wins; sometimes you rank favourites.}} | ||
{{ExpertIntro| | {{ExpertIntro|Formal voting is proposed only for high-stakes questions, after lighter tools (direct action, revert, discussion). Condorcet is considered relevant for complex, clearly contested cases. This survey covers the methods WikiDeal is studying: simple majority, approval, ranked methods, Condorcet with Schulze, and STV for multi-seat elections. The mapping of methods to decision types is a first hypothesis.}} | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
= Voting methods under study = | = Voting methods under study = | ||
''Status: first hypothesis (draft). WikiDeal has not adopted any voting method yet. This page documents the options being explored. Rules of procedure are on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Rules|Voting rules]] page; evidence and sources are on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|research page]].'' | ''Status: first hypothesis (draft). WikiDeal has not adopted any voting method yet. This page documents the options being explored. When to vote at all is treated on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main#ladder-of-tools|portal main page]]: most decisions are intended to be settled by lighter tools (direct action, revert, discussion), and a formal vote is a last resort. Rules of procedure are on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Rules|Voting rules]] page; evidence and sources are on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|research page]].'' | ||
<span id="simple-majority"></span> | <span id="simple-majority"></span> | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
=== The Condorcet paradox and the Schulze completion === | === The Condorcet paradox and the Schulze completion === | ||
Sometimes there is no Condorcet winner: A can beat B, B beat C, and C beat A, like rock-paper-scissors. This is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox Condorcet paradox], and it | Sometimes there is no Condorcet winner: A can beat B, B beat C, and C beat A, like rock-paper-scissors. This is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox Condorcet paradox], and it can be observed in real ballot data: the published pairwise table of the 2008 Wikimedia Board election shows such a circle among three mid-ranked candidates (the exact figures are on the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research#wikimedia-experience|research page]] and the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Condorcet-History|history and results page]]). | ||
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method Schulze method] resolves these cycles by comparing chains of victories (beatpaths): a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the option with the strongest chains wins. The Schulze method always elects the Condorcet winner when one exists, satisfies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_criterion monotonicity] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_clones_criterion independence of clones] (adding a similar option does not change the outcome), and is used by free software communities such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian]. This combination of properties is why the initial hypothesis | The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method Schulze method] resolves these cycles by comparing chains of victories (beatpaths): a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the option with the strongest chains wins. The Schulze method always elects the Condorcet winner when one exists, satisfies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_criterion monotonicity] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_clones_criterion independence of clones] (adding a similar option does not change the outcome), and is used by free software communities such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian Debian]. This combination of properties is why the initial hypothesis considers it relevant where a decision is complex and multi-option, and where the need to vote at all is clearly and widely perceived. Even then, a Schulze ballot is intended as a complement to the simpler tools, not a replacement: a contribution that can simply be reverted needs no vote, and a disagreement that discussion can settle needs none either. | ||
<span id="stv"></span> | <span id="stv"></span> | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
== Which method for which decision == | == Which method for which decision == | ||
First hypothesis, to be validated: | First hypothesis, to be validated. This table applies only once a decision actually needs a formal vote; most decisions are intended to be settled earlier by direct action, revert and discussion (see the [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main#ladder-of-tools|ladder of decision tools]]): | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
|} | |} | ||
'''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting at WikiDeal]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Rules|Voting rules]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|Voting research and experience]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Licensing-and-Credits|Licensing and credits]] | '''See also:''' [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Main|Voting at WikiDeal]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Rules|Voting rules]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Research|Voting research and experience]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Voting/Condorcet-History|Condorcet history and results]] · [[Gov/en/Portal:Meta/Licensing-and-Credits|Licensing and credits]] | ||
[[Category:Migration June 2026]] | [[Category:Migration June 2026]] | ||
<!-- visible --> | <!-- visible --> | ||