Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Using Approval and Range Voting

for AAS Elections

Student Government Election Systems

Overview

8 main criteria

Evaluation of Student Government Election Systems

  • Majority - Plurality Voting system
  • Anonymous, Neutral, Monotone, Majority Criterion, Ease of Use and Implementation
  • Spoiler effect, large number of wasted votes, limited range of voter choice, subjected to fraud and manipulation, low voter turnout
  • 3 main systems:
  • Majority-Plurality Voting systems:
  • Amherst College, Louisiana State University, Macalester College
  • Dartmouth Collge, UMass Amherst, Boston University
  • IRV-STV systems:
  • MIT, Northeastern University, Harvard University
  • Approval Voting:
  • Princeton University, University of Colorado
  • Anonymity
  • Neutrality
  • Monotonicity
  • Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives
  • Minimal Number of Wasted Votes
  • Sufficient Range of Voter Choice
  • Ease of Comprehension and Use
  • Resistance to Fraud and Manipulation
  • Research AAS election system versus 10 other colleges (multi-seat elections versus single office elections)

  • Establish a list of evaluating criteria

  • Evaluate different systems

  • Conclude on:
  • Range voting for single-office elections
  • Approval voting for multi-seat elections

Evaluation of New Election System

Proposed Changes to Election Rules

Evaluation of Student Government Election Systems

Single-office Election System: Range Voting

  • Criteria-based Evaluation:
  • Anonymous, Neutral, Monotone, IIA, smaller number of wasted votes, broader range of expression, ease of comprehension and use, resistance to fraud and manipulation
  • Practicality and Context Evaluation
  • Ease of implementation, Application of Quota Rule, Possible Score Counting Problem, Rating Efficiency

Multi-seat Election System: Approval Voting

  • Criteria-based Evaluation
  • Practicality and Context Evaluation
  • Possible violation of Majority Rule
  • Single-office Elections:
  • Voters rate candidates on a scale of 1-10
  • Quota = 6.0
  • Winning candidate is the one who receives the highest score (> or = 6.0)
  • In case of tie: Majority Rule
  • Multi-seat Elections:
  • Voters may approve only once for a candidate but can approve as many candidates as they would like
  • Quota = 50%
  • Senate Election Winners: 8 candidates with highest approval rate (> or = 50%)
  • Judiciary Council Winners: 3 candidates with highest approval rate (> or = 50%)
  • In case of tie: Majority Rule
  • IRV-STV systems
  • Anonymous, neutral, reduced spoiler effect, broader range of expression, lower number of wasted votes
  • Non-monotonicity, complicated process, implementation difficulty, reduced voter turnout
  • Approval Voting systems
  • Anonymous, neutral, monotone, IIA, smaller number of wasted votes (unless bullet voting), reduced spoiler effect, simplicity
  • Equally weighted votes, possible election of bland candidate, manipulation by candidates and voters.

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi