Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128263
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:15:44 -0500
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <fc32762e-0a55-4756-903b-49269fae3b80@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cf8d6772-bff6-41a8-855e-e89edaf18b25@bastelstu.be>
References: <b0d97beef95862524b329922522bbefe@bastelstu.be>
 <7afc0ac1-3446-459a-a67a-e616afe750f6@app.fastmail.com>
 <da61c5e98ab460211d4e54d7903b2e25@bastelstu.be>
 <c7ddb907-0e7c-4abe-90f9-e28f6cfbaefc@app.fastmail.com>
 <cf8d6772-bff6-41a8-855e-e89edaf18b25@bastelstu.be>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] "Abstain" voting option for RFCs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Sun, Jul 27, 2025, at 8:09 AM, Tim D=C3=BCsterhus wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 7/24/25 15:42, Larry Garfield wrote:
>> Just to clarify here, Single Transferable Vote and Ranked Choice Voti=
ng are the same thing.  I think it's just another Ameircan-vs-British En=
glish question. :-)
>
> My understanding is that =E2=80=9CRanked Choice Voting=E2=80=9D is a g=
eneric term of=20
> which =E2=80=9CSingle Transferable Vote=E2=80=9D is a specific impleme=
ntation. I=20
> specifically do not want to allow any other implementations than the o=
ne=20
> the PHP project is already comfortable with using.

<Tangent>
Disclosure: I am a founding member of the Board of Directors for Fair Vo=
te Illinois, the Ranked Choice Voting organization in my US state.  I al=
so led the ground campaign for my town to become the first in the state =
to vote to adopt RCV.  So I have more than a passing involvement in thes=
e details. :-)

The terminology in this area is sadly rather muddled, as there are no fo=
rmal terms.  There are several closely related voting systems that invol=
ve voters listing choices in exclusive order.  Collectively they are kno=
wn as "Ranked Voting."  There are then several different ways to count a=
nd collate the votes, though they all look identical to the voter. =20

Condorcet voting is where the winner is whoever would win in a one-v-one=
 match up with every other candidate.  This can be easily determined thr=
ough a ranked ballot, though not all elections have a Concorcet winner.

Instant-runoff voting is what most people think of, where you eliminate =
low-ranked choices and count voters' next choices, until there is a majo=
rity winner.  In the US, for reasons I don't understand, it's become com=
monplace to use the term "Ranked Choice Voting" for this method, and is =
the most common form of Ranked Voting in use today.  It also goes by the=
 name Preferential voting or Alternative vote in different areas, just t=
o keep life confusing.

Single Transferable Vote, according to Wikipedia, is for electing multip=
le people in the same election.  It involves counting fractional votes i=
n case someone gets more votes than needed.  It also goes by the name "P=
roportional Ranked Choice Voting."  This is what FIG has long used for e=
lecting its leadership.  Technically STV's degenerate case where there's=
 only one choice being elected is equivalent to IRV/RCV.

There's also others like Bourda count, which are not relevant to us for =
now.

cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
</Tangent>

All that said, I am not suggesting we put "RCV" into the bylaw text.  It=
's fine to just list STV as that's the term we already use.

>> How about this, as a following paragraph:
>>=20
>> 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 wi=
ll go to a second round.  "Bar" will be eliminated and those votes redis=
tributed to second-choice options.  If for example the second round resu=
lt is 6 "Foo", 9 "Baz", and 11 "Abstain", then Baz will have won as it h=
as a clear majority of non-Abstain votes cast.
>
> That is quite verbose and requires two assumptions to be made, making =
it=20
> hard to follow when not already knowing how STV works. I think it will=20
> confuse more than it helps.
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus

It's 3 sentences, and less than 4 lines wrapped.  I'd hardly call that v=
erbose.

--Larry Garfield