[Unofficial] New Global Moderator Election - [Discussion]

[achow101]

And the winner is Mitchell with 51 votes with Lauda close behind with 48.

We will likely recommend both to theymos for a potential new global moderator (or two).

No offence, but your laziness is likely to call the outcome into question.

No offence taken. The results of this are already questionable.

[1714922762]

1714922762

[Dabs]

What were the raw counts? I'm 3rd or 4th from last? What's the popular vote?, and anyone else who isn't lazy to calculate for any other voting system?

[botany]

I was following the practice of Felon Disenfranchisement where convicted felons (i.e. scammers/those who have an overall negative trust score) are not allowed to vote. Given that this election is mostly based on the Australian election system, it also follows their use of felon disenfranchisement.

The only convicts here are those who have served at least one ban. 

And the winner is Mitchell with 51 votes with Lauda close behind with 48.
We will likely recommend both to theymos for a potential new global moderator (or two).

When is Theymos likely to take a call? Two additional global moderators might result in a vast improvement over the current scenario.

[achow101]

What were the raw counts? I'm 3rd or 4th from last? What's the popular vote?, and anyone else who isn't lazy to calculate for any other voting system?

All votes and results are recorded at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bOitaEjce12xUzddwAwtwXGn9pH7FOpyPKl5Cbeo6ww

[Foxpup]

Mitchell wins!

Two candidate preferred vote:
|
   Lauda (48.5%) ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ (51.5%) Mitchell
|
Lauda: 48
Mitchell: 51
Exhausted: 19

Swing-o-meter:
|
   Lauda (+1.1%) ░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (-1.1%) Mitchell
|

Lauda got a couple of extra votes in the final day, but in the end it just wasn't enough. Congratulations to Mitchell.

Final rankings:

Candidate	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Round 5
#1 Mitchell	34 (28.8%)	36 (30.5%)	41 (34.7%)	50 (42.7%)	51 (51.5%)
#2 Lauda	37 (31.4%)	38 (32.2%)	41 (34.7%)	45 (38.5%)	48 (48.5%)
#3 HostFat	20 (16.9%)	20 (16.9%)	21 (17.8%)	22 (18.8%)	0
#4 Dabs	14 (11.9%)	15 (12.7%)	15 (12.7%)	0	0
#5 achow101	8 (6.8%)	9 (7.6%)	0	0	0
#6 mprep	5 (4.2%)	0	0	0	0
#7 Adriano	0	0	0	0	0
=7 xandry	0	0	0	0	0
Exhausted	0	0	0	1	19

Here's how the result would have turned out under some other voting systems:

First past the post:
The standard plurality system familiar to most people. The candidate with the most #1 votes wins!
#1 Lauda:    37 █████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (31.4%)       
#2 Mitchell: 34 ████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (28.8%)       
#3 HostFat:  20 ███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (16.9%)       
#4 Dabs:     14 █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (11.9%)       
#5 achow101:  8 ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 6.8%)       
#6 mprep:     5 ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 4.2%)       
#7 Adriano:   0 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.0%)       
=7 xandry:    0 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.0%)       

Lauda would have won under this system, though the rankings of the other candidates would remain unchanged.

Borda count:
Candidates receive 3 points for each #1 vote, 2 points for each #2 vote, and 1 point for each #3 vote. Naturally, the one with the most points wins!
#1 Mitchell: 188 ███████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (28.4%)         
#2 Lauda:    176 ███████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (26.6%)         
#3 achow101:  97 ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (14.7%)         
#4 Dabs:      84 █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (12.7%)         
#5 HostFat:   67 ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (10.1%)         
#6 mprep:     42 ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 6.3%)         
#7 Adriano:    7 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 1.1%)         
#8 xandry:     1 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.2%)         

Mitchell still wins by a narrow margin, but with no eliminations, achow101 takes 3rd place. With #1 votes not as helpful under this system, and not having much else to go on, HostFat drops down to 5th place. Last, and in fact least, there is no longer a tie for last place. Xandry loses having received only a single #3 vote.

Bucklin voting:
When no candidate has a majority of #1 votes, #2 votes are added to the mix (and #3, if there's still no majority leader). (Majority is defined as 50% of the ballots (in this case 59), so it's possible for more than one candidate to have a majority after several rounds. In that case, the one with the highest count wins.)
#1 Mitchell: 68 ████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (30.5%)       
#2 Lauda:    58 ██████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (26.0%)       
#3 achow101: 31 ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (13.9%)       
#4 Dabs:     25 ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (11.2%)       
#5 HostFat:  23 ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (10.3%)       
#6 mprep:    15 ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 6.7%)       
#7 Adriano:   3 █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 1.3%)       
#8 xandry:    0 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.0%)       
Exhausted: 13

Mitchell is the only candidate to reach the requisite 59 votes and is the clear winner. As with the Borda system, achow101 is in 3rd and HostFat is in 5th, with #2 votes being more decisive. Again, xandry is in last place, with the single #3 vote not counting at all.

It's worth noting that this election was close enough that under systems where ballot exhaustion is a possibility (instant run-off and Bucklin), the exhausted ballots could have decided the outcome had they counted. Most of them were cases of people not putting a #2 or #3 preference. The outcome might have been different had people known how to vote properly.

(Some percentages may not add to exactly 100.0% due to rounding errors.)

[achow101]

--snip--

That is a great analysis Foxpup, thanks for doing it!

[xhomerx10]

--snip--

That is a great analysis Foxpup, thanks for doing it!

 That is an amazing analysis.  Did you type that all by hand or did you write some code to push it out?

[Foxpup]

That is an amazing analysis.  Did you type that all by hand or did you write some code to push it out?

Everything from counting the votes to formatting the charts was all by hand, with some help from a calculator and two cans of Red Bull. That's why it took so long to push out. If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.


Bonus half-arsed analysis: Since two moderators might be promoted, I should note that under a two-winner single transferable vote (the multiple-winner version of instant run-off voting), Lauda and Mitchell would both win, regardless of what rules are used (if the Droop quota (33.3̅%+1) is used, they both win in round 3 above with 0.6̅ surplus votes each* (an exact tie), while if the Hare quota (50%) is used, Mitchell achieves quota in round 5, and Lauda wins by default being the only remaining candidate for Mitchell's 1.5 surplus votes to transfer to).

*These 1.3̅ votes would be subdivided further between the remaining candidates (HostFat and Dabs) based on the averaged preferences of all the votes for the winners, which means counting them all over again, which I'm not going to do because 1.3̅ votes isn't quite enough to bump Dabs into 3rd place, no matter which way they go.

[Lauda]

Excellent analysis Foxpup; thank you for doing that.

If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.

I may be inclined to run another random election just to get some more of these stats. Maybe Miss Bitcointalk 2016?

[Mitchell]

Foxpup, those charts are amazing. Thanks for doing them!

[deisik]

Excellent analysis Foxpup; thank you for doing that.

If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.

I may be inclined to run another random election

Oh, no, please not again!

Maybe Miss Bitcointalk 2016?

Are you going to participate?

I think such a contest might attract by far more voters than the recent "elections", provided the contestants would be able to prove their identities first. Somehow, I won't be quite happy to see among the winners of this beauty contest some 50-year-old bald-headed crook with a pot belly and a set of false teeth

[chixka000]

Well, I was out for days and seeing the results just sounds fair to me, tnx to that expert above who spend some time in taking and analyzing everything out. Now it would go up to theymos by now i supposed? Much likely how the candidates want's the forum to be better again not just in terms of banning but also helping others

cheers,

[Foxpup]

More analysis! It's head-to-head time as we pit each candidate against each other candidate in a one-on-one contest for majority. For each match-up, only ballots which voted for one or both of the candidates are counted (ballots which voted for both count for whichever candidate was ranked higher). Here are the results:

Pairwise matrix

Candidate	achow101	Adriano	Dabs	HostFat	Lauda	Mitchell	mprep	xandry	Wins
achow101		58 (93.5%)	51 (57.3%)	54 (70.1%)	29 (30.2%)	24 (24.7%)	54 (73.0%)	58 (98.3%)	5 █████░░
Adriano	4 (6.5%)		1 (2.2%)	3 (11.1%)	4 (4.7%)	4 (4.5%)	3 (12.0%)	4 (100.0%)	1 █░░░░░░
Dabs	38 (42.7%)	45 (97.8%)		41 (64.1%)	29 (29.3%)	25 (25.3%)	41 (69.5%)	45 (97.8%)	4 ████░░░
HostFat	23 (29.9%)	24 (88.9%)	23 (35.9%)		24 (23.8%)	22 (20.8%)	23 (51.1%)	24 (100.0%)	3 ███░░░░
Lauda	67 (69.8%)	81 (95.3%)	70 (70.7%)	77 (76.2%)		48 (48.5%)	76 (85.4%)	81 (98.8%)	6 ██████░
Mitchell	73 (75.3%)	84 (95.5%)	74 (74.7%)	84 (79.2%)	51 (51.5%)		81 (86.2%)	86 (98.9%)	7 ███████
mprep	20 (27.0%)	22 (88.0%)	18 (30.5%)	22 (48.9%)	13 (14.6%)	13 (13.8%)		22 (95.7%)	2 ██░░░░░
xandry	1 (1.7%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (2.2%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.2%)	1 (1.1%)	1 (4.3%)		0 ░░░░░░░
Losses	2	6	3	4	1	0	5	7

As Mitchell has a majority over every other candidate, he is the Condorcet winner. Conversely, xandry is the Condorcet loser, being defeated by every other candidate. (Note that an election will not necessarily have a Condorcet winner and loser.)

Copeland's pairwise aggregation
Pairwise wins minus pairwise losses.
#1 Mitchell: ████████████████████████████████████████  7          
#2 Lauda:    ██████████████████████████████████░░░░░░  5          
#3 achow101: █████████████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░  3          
#4 Dabs:     ███████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░  1          
#5 HostFat:  █████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -1          
#6 mprep:    ███████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -3          
#7 Adriano:  ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -5          
#8 xandry:   ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -7          

This system always elects the Condorcet winner when one exists, so naturally Mitchell comes out on top. As with the other systems where #1 votes aren't as important, achow101 reaches 3rd place and HostFat drops to 5th. Notably, the result is perfectly linear, as each candidate loses to every higher-placed candidate and defeats every lower-placed candidate, ie, there are no non-transitive preferences.

[botany]

My head is spinning with all this analysis.
We should have an electoral college for this election. 
Let the contestants win local boards and then we will have a face off.

[deisik]

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me

[achow101]

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me

Unfortunately nothing has been done. I have PM'ed theymos and attempted to get his attention about this but so far he has not responded.

[jamalaezaz]

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me

Unfortunately nothing has been done. I have PM'ed theymos and attempted to get his attention about this but so far he has not responded.

nor he will..
I don't think theymos will show any interest on these play of kids type activities which you guys are doing.. everything here is nothing but just a none sense game. this is not a way to select a global mod.

[Joel_Jantsen]

this is not a way to select a global mod.

What is the right way then ? Please enlighten us Bitcointalk Jesus.

[deisik]

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me

Unfortunately nothing has been done. I have PM'ed theymos and attempted to get his attention about this but so far he has not responded.

nor he will..
I don't think theymos will show any interest on these play of kids type activities which you guys are doing.. everything here is nothing but just a none sense game. this is not a way to select a global mod.

That should have been expected

Personally, I don't care so much about who will get promoted to a Global Moderator position (at least as long as they don't interfere with normal posters) as about the idea of the Banned rank, which has been seemingly abandoned by now. Implementing that would render very bad service to the forum, and it's a pity that those supporting this idea don't fully understand the consequences

this is not a way to select a global mod.

What is the right way then ? Please enlighten us Bitcointalk Jesus.

How former and present Global Moderators were selected?

[InvoKing]

That should have been expected

Personally, I don't care so much about who will get promoted to a Global Moderator position (at least as long as they don't interfere with normal posters) as about the idea of the Banned rank, which has been seemingly abandoned by now. Implementing that would render very bad service to the forum, and it's a pity that those supporting this idea don't fully understand the consequences

A democracy in a private property of someone else 
Well wonder know how theymos thinks about this and if he thinks that the forums needs a new global mod or not for the moment.
The experience was great and I personally liked it.