DOCSLIB.ORG

Alternative Voting Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alternative Voting Systems voter’s interest in ranking more than one candidate. but any changes to our existing Plurality system might September 2004 Ranking all of the candidates is not a theoretical require modifying the Minnesota Constitution and/or these requirement of any system. This process is called statutes. The section on legal issues later in this document preference voting. discusses these statutes. Each of these systems has advocates who are Alternative Voting Systems: actively working for its acceptance, if not in Minnesota, Approval Voting (AV): An Unranked Voting System then in other states or at the national level. This is not a In the Approval Facts and Issues comprehensive list of all voting systems but rather a Voting system, voters are discussion of those with vocal supporters and/or those allowed to vote for as that occur most frequently in academic publications. The many candidates as they League of Women Voters has incorporated the opinions of wish. The candidate supporters and opponents of each alternative voting receiving the greatest total Introduction purpose of this study is to provide background system as well as views from members of various number of votes wins the The 2000 Presidential election challenged information about the most frequently discussed academic disciplines and leaders of Minnesota’s four election. Approval Voting Americans’ complacency about the accuracy and alternative voting systems for reference, discussion, and political parties. was created in Venice in fairness of our voting system as never before. With the debate. The study does not offer solutions or proposals The report does not address presidential the 13th century when the Venetians used it to elect 10 outcome still in doubt three weeks after Election Day, for change, nor does it assume that changing the current elections, the Electoral College, multi-seat elections, members to their Grand Council. the combination of a close race, multiple candidates, system is necessarily desirable. proportional representation, cumulative voting (see Approval Voting did not surface again until the antiquated voting equipment, and confusing recount This study will use the term voting system to Glossary) or other election reform issues such as mid-1970’s, when it was independently proposed by procedures created a perfect storm that left voters across mean a collection of rules and procedures that redistricting, paperless ballots, or campaign finance. several scholars, including Steven J. Brams, professor of the country frustrated and angry. establishes how an election will be conducted. These politics at New York University, who remains its champion While some saw the disputes in Florida as an rules include how the ballots are marked, how the votes Voting Systems to this day. Best known for its use in electing the entertaining diversion, others began to wonder about are tabulated, how many votes are necessary to win, and Secretary-General of the United Nations, Approval Voting their own state’s equipment and procedures, and, for the other election administration procedures. Plurality: An Unranked Voting System is also used to elect officers of professional organizations first time in many years, some started to question Minnesota uses such as the Institute of Management Sciences, the seriously the fundamental structure of a winner-take-all H.F. 1719: Proposed Election Law for Roseville the Plurality system, also Mathematical Association of America, and the American 11 plurality election system. When only two major party “Notwithstanding any contrary provision in Minnesota called First Past the Post, Statistical Association. candidates are on the ballot in an election using the Statutes, the city of Roseville may adopt by ordinance in which each voter Interest in using this system to elect public plurality system, majority rule is not a concern. However, cumulative voting, ranked-order voting, or another chooses a single candi- officials is growing in the United States. An organization when three or more candidates are running, the winner method of voting for municipal elections in 2004 that date, and the candidate called “Americans for Approval Voting” has formed to might not have received a majority of the votes. uses a form of ballot different from that required by with the most votes wins. work for the adoption of Approval Voting for public 12 In fact, eleven of twelve statewide elections in Minnesota Statutes, section 204B.36, subdivision 2.” In races with three or elections in the United States. Minnesota conducted from 1998 through 2002 were This bill passed in the Senate but failed in the House on more candidates, it is possible for a candidate to win with The following example shows how AV might work. decided by less than a majority,1 sparking interest in March 15, 2004.5 fewer than 50% of the votes; in other words, the winner Four professors in a college English Department are trying 6 alternative voting systems that would address this and can be elected by a minority of the voters. Recent to choose a handbook (a text with rules for grammar and other issues. Evidence of this interest includes bills The scope of the study is limited to single-seat examples include Minnesota’s 1998 and 2002 gubernato- punctuation) for their students. They have narrowed the permitting Instant Runoff Voting in local and state Minnesota state and local elections, such as those for rial elections and, at the national level, the presidential choice to three books, which are virtually the same except elections that were introduced in the 2002 and 2003 mayors, state legislators, or governor. It describes our elections of 1992 and 2000. for the titles. They decide to use the Approval Voting Minnesota Legislatures2 and a more narrowly focused bill current election system and four alternative systems— The Plurality system originated in ancient Greece system, so the professors vote for all of the handbooks of that would give the city of Roseville, Minnesota, the Plurality, Approval Voting (AV), Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), and Rome and evolved in England before the American which they approve. The Pocket Handbook of Grammar is option to use alternative voting systems that was Borda Count, and Condorcet—in terms of how the ballots Revolution. Outside the United States, the Plurality the winner. introduced in 2004.3 are marked and how the votes are counted. In addition, system is used in the United Kingdom and other former 7 The proposed election law for Roseville passed in the study presents different issues raised by advocates British colonies, such as Canada and India. Professor Pocket Handbook Great Big Picture Grammar and the Senate but was “resoundingly defeated” in the House for each system. Although the U.S. Constitution sets of Grammar Book of Grammar Videogames on March 15, 2004. Comments after the vote suggest In the Plurality and Approval Voting systems, out a complicated process for electing the that many people are unaware that alternative voting voters do not rank their choices; they simply indicate president via the Electoral College that Angelou YES YES systems exist and are unfamiliar with the steps necessary which candidate or candidates they prefer. In the Instant requires a majority vote of electors, it permits Tan YES YES to adopt one of them.4 Runoff Voting, Borda Count, and Condorcet systems, the states to determine their own election Dickinson YES YES 8 These facts suggest that League members, however, they do rank their choices. This means that they procedures. Minnesota state statutes, Woolf YES YES Legislators, and the public would find information about identify their first choice, their second choice, and so on, therefore, not the U.S. Constitution, dictate Totals 4 3 1 9 alternative voting systems to be a useful resource. The depending on how many candidates are running and the how elections in Minnesota are conducted, 1 2 A reverse form of the Approval Voting system are counted. If a candidate gets 50% + 1 of the votes, he (Brams calls it Disapproval Voting) has been used since or she is declared the winner. If no one has a majority, the Denmark. Instant Runoff Voting, using a 1987 in some Eastern European countries and the former counting goes to round two. The candidate with the preference ballot, was invented by W.R. Region 1st place—3pts 2nd place—2 pts 3rd place—1 pt Total Soviet Union. Voters cross off the names of candidates of lowest number of votes is eliminated. The votes cast for Ware, a professor at Massachusetts Alsace 15 votes = 45 pts 5 votes = 10 pts 10 votes = 10 pts 65 pts 18 whom they disapprove. Brams adds that this procedure the eliminated candidate are then transferred (or moved) Institute of Technology, around 1870.” Bordeaux 5 votes = 15 pts 20 votes = 40 pts 5 votes = 5 pts 60 pts is similar to Approval Voting in that “candidates not to the second choice listed on each ballot. If someone Four states—Florida, Indiana, Champagne 10 votes = 30 pts 5 votes = 10 pts 15 votes = 15 pts 55 pts crossed off are, in effect, approved of, although gets a majority, the election is over. If no one receives a Maryland, and Minnesota—used varia- psychologically there is almost surely a difference majority, the counting goes to round three and continues tions of Instant Runoff Voting in primary elections as early Although Napoleon Bonaparte quashed the between approving and disapproving of candidates.”13 until someone has 50% + 1 of the total votes. There is no as 1912. Ireland and Australia currently use IRV in nation- 19 20 Borda Count election system in the nineteenth century, need for a separate runoff election, thus explaining the al elections, and London uses it to elect its mayor. twentieth century sports writers and fans revived a term Instant Runoff Voting, and the winner always has a San Francisco is implementing IRV for its November, And the Winner Is—Kicked Out 21 complicated version of it to determine who receives majority of the votes.16 2004 elections as well.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Single-Winner Voting Method Comparison Chart
    Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart This chart compares the most widely discussed voting methods for electing a single winner (and thus does not deal with multi-seat or proportional representation methods). There are countless possible evaluation criteria. The Criteria at the top of the list are those we believe are most important to U.S. voters. Plurality Two- Instant Approval4 Range5 Condorcet Borda (FPTP)1 Round Runoff methods6 Count7 Runoff2 (IRV)3 resistance to low9 medium high11 medium12 medium high14 low15 spoilers8 10 13 later-no-harm yes17 yes18 yes19 no20 no21 no22 no23 criterion16 resistance to low25 high26 high27 low28 low29 high30 low31 strategic voting24 majority-favorite yes33 yes34 yes35 no36 no37 yes38 no39 criterion32 mutual-majority no41 no42 yes43 no44 no45 yes/no 46 no47 criterion40 prospects for high49 high50 high51 medium52 low53 low54 low55 U.S. adoption48 Condorcet-loser no57 yes58 yes59 no60 no61 yes/no 62 yes63 criterion56 Condorcet- no65 no66 no67 no68 no69 yes70 no71 winner criterion64 independence of no73 no74 yes75 yes/no 76 yes/no 77 yes/no 78 no79 clones criterion72 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 monotonicity yes no no yes yes yes/no yes criterion80 prepared by FairVote: The Center for voting and Democracy (April 2009). References Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks (1991). “Monotonicity in Electoral Systems”. American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (June): 531-537. Brewer, Albert P. (1993). “First- and Secon-Choice Votes in Alabama”. The Alabama Review, A Quarterly Review of Alabama History, Vol. ?? (April): ?? - ?? Burgin, Maggie (1931). The Direct Primary System in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranked-Choice Voting from a Partisan Perspective
    Ranked-Choice Voting From a Partisan Perspective Jack Santucci December 21, 2020 Revised December 22, 2020 Abstract Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has come to mean a range of electoral systems. Broadly, they can facilitate (a) majority winners in single-seat districts, (b) majority rule with minority representation in multi-seat districts, or (c) majority sweeps in multi-seat districts. Such systems can be combined with other rules that encourage/discourage slate voting. This paper describes five major versions used in U.S. public elections: Al- ternative Vote (AV), single transferable vote (STV), block-preferential voting (BPV), the bottoms-up system, and AV with numbered posts. It then considers each from the perspective of a `political operative.' Simple models of voting (one with two parties, another with three) draw attention to real-world strategic issues: effects on minority representation, importance of party cues, and reasons for the political operative to care about how voters rank choices. Unsurprisingly, different rules produce different outcomes with the same votes. Specific problems from the operative's perspective are: majority reversal, serving two masters, and undisciplined third-party voters (e.g., `pure' independents). Some of these stem from well-known phenomena, e.g., ballot exhaus- tion/ranking truncation and inter-coalition \vote leakage." The paper also alludes to vote-management tactics, i.e., rationing nominations and ensuring even distributions of first-choice votes. Illustrative examples come from American history and comparative politics. (209 words.) Keywords: Alternative Vote, ballot exhaustion, block-preferential voting, bottoms- up system, exhaustive-preferential system, instant runoff voting, ranked-choice voting, sequential ranked-choice voting, single transferable vote, strategic coordination (10 keywords).
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the City Clerk: Elections and Voter Services Division Table of Contents
    Office of the City Clerk: Elections and Voter Services Division Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2 I. IMPACT OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION ......................................................... 3 II. STATE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM ISSUES (EARLY VOTING) ........................................................... 3 III. RECOMMENDED LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................. 4 IV. FINANCING ELECTIONS: MULTI-YEAR PERSPECTIVE .................................................................... 5 V. FINANCING THE 2013 MUNICIPAL ELECTION – SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUEST ........... 7 VI. PROCUREMENT OF NEW VOTING SYSTEMS & EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 8 VII. PRECINCTS & POLLING PLACES ......................................................................................................... 9 VIII. VOTER OUTREACH & EDUCATION ...................................................................................................11 IX. RANKED CHOICE VOTING – THE MINNEAPOLIS METHOD: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................14 CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an update on several initiatives aimed at improving administrative
    [Show full text]
  • Going from Theory to Practice: the Mixed Success of Approval Voting
    Going from Theory to Practice: The Mixed Success of Approval Voting Steven J. Brams Department of Politics New York University New York, NY 10003 E-mail: [email protected] Peter C. Fishburn Information Sciences Research Center AT&T Shannon Laboratory Florham Park, NJ 07932 E-mail: [email protected] Prepared for delivery at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 28 - August 31, 2003. Copyright by the American Political Science Association. 2 Abstract Approval voting (AV) is a voting system in which voters can vote for, or approve of, as many candidates as they like in multicandidate elections. In 1987 and 1988, four scientific and engineering societies, collectively comprising several hundred thousand members, used AV for the first time. Since then, about half a dozen other societies have adopted AV. Usually its adoption was seriously debated, but other times pragmatic or political considerations proved decisive in its selection. While AV has an ancient pedigree, its recent history is the focus of this paper. Ballot data from some of the societies that adopted AV are used to compare theoretical results with experience, including the nature of voting under AV and the kinds of candidates that are elected. Although the use of AV is generally considered to have been successful in the societies—living up to the rhetoric of its proponents—AV has been a controversial reform. AV is not currently used in any public elections, despite efforts to institute it, so its success should be judged as mixed. The chief reason for its nonadoption in public elections, and by some societies, seems to be a lack of key “insider” support.
    [Show full text]
  • League of Women Voters Positions on Ranked Voting Methods (IRV and Choice Voting)
    League of Women Voters positions on Ranked Voting Methods (IRV and Choice Voting) ARIZOA The League of Women Voters of Arizona believes in the election system principle of greater vote representation. The LWVAZ maintains the hope that election system reform that provides a stronger voice for the greatest number of voters should have a positive effect on voter participation. Therefore, the LWVAZ: • Supports changing the present election systems so that they more accurately represent the wishes of voters: • Adopting the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)system for single seat races; • Adopting proportional representation for multi-seat races, specifically Ranked Choice Voting. • Believes that education of the voting public is important to election systems. • Supports giving Arizona voters the option of more choice among election systems. Consensus 2005, Amended 2008 CALIFORIA Election Systems Position Support election systems for executive offices, both at the state and local levels, that require the winner to receive a majority of the votes, as long as the majority is achieved using a voting method such as Instant Runoff Voting, rather than a second, separate runoff election. Adopted 2001; Modified 2003; Readopted at last convention. FLORIDA Following statewide local League consensus meetings, the League of Women Voters of Florida announced a new Election Law, Voting Process position making the method of instant runoff voting a recommended alternative to plurality voting. MASSACHUSETTS VOTING SYSTEMS GOAL: Voting systems should be easy to use, administer and understand, encourage high voter turnout, encourage real discussion on issues, promote minority representation, and encourage candidates to run. When electing someone to a single executive office at the state level, such as governor or attorney general, including primary and general elections, the voting system should require the winner to obtain a majority of the votes.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranked Choice Voting: a Different Way of Casting and Counting Votes David C. Kimball and Joseph Anthony
    Ranked Choice Voting: A Different Way of Casting and Counting Votes David C. Kimball and Joseph Anthony 1 Can changing the way votes are cast and counted change how campaigns are conducted and who is elected? This chapter examines ranked choice voting, a different set of voting rules than the plurality system we are accustomed to in the United States. Ranked choice voting asks voters to rank candidates by order of preference, allowing for a more complete expression of a voter’s candidate preferences. Several American cities have recently adopted ranked choice voting for local elections. Based on our limited experience with these new voting rules, ranked choice voting appears to improve on plurality voting rules in several ways: (1) attracting more candidates for local office, particularly women and people of color; (2) reducing incentives for negative campaigns; (3) and lessening the burden on voters and local governments by consolidating two elections into one. However, there are concerns that ranked choice voting rules are more complicated for voters and some voters may not take full advantage of these rules. Issues with Plurality, Winner-Take-All Voting Casual observers of American politics may not appreciate how crucial the voting rules are in shaping political competition and determining whose interests are represented in government. Since the nation’s founding, the United States has relied almost exclusively on plurality, or “winner-take-all,” rules for electing government officials. Plurality voting rules are very simple. Candidates compete for an office and voters mark their ballots to indicate the single candidate they prefer the most.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Elections with Instant Runoff Voting
    FAIRVOTE: THE CENTER FOR VOTING & DEMOCRACY | WWW.FAIRVOTE.ORG | (301) 270-4616 Improving Elections with Instant Runoff Voting Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) - Used for both government and private elections around the United States and the world, instant runoff voting is a simple election process used to avoid the expense, difficulties and shortcomings of runoff elections. Compared to the traditional “delayed” runoff, IRV saves taxpayers money, cuts the costs of running campaigns, elects public officials with higher voter turnout and encourages candidates to run less negative campaigns. How instant runoff voting works: • First round of counting: The voters rank their preferred candidate first and may also rank additional choices (second, third, etc.). In the first round of counting, the voters’ #1 choices are tallied. A candidate who receives enough first choices to win outright (typically a majority) is declared the winner. However, other candidates may have enough support to require a runoff – just as in traditional runoff systems. • Second round: If no one achieves a clear victory, the runoff occurs instantly. The candidate with the fewest votes is removed and the votes made for that candidate are redistributed using voters’ second choices. Other voters’ top choices remain the same. The redistributed votes are added to the counts of the candidates still in competition. The process is repeated until one candidate has majority support. The benefits: Instant runoff voting (IRV) would do everything the current runoff system does to ensure that the winner has popular support – but it does it in one election rather than two. • Saves localities, taxpayers and candidates money by holding only one election.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plurality-With-Elimination Method (PWE)
    The 2000 San Diego Mayoral Election1 Candidate Percentage of Votes Ron Roberts 25.72% Dick Murphy 15.68% Peter Q. Davis 15.62% Barbara Warden 15.16% George Stevens 10.42% Byron Wear 9.02% All others 8.38% • If no candidate receives a majority, then by law, a runoff election is held between the top two candidates. 1http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/pdf/mayorresults.pdf Example: The 2000 San Diego Mayoral Election Practical problems with this system: I Runoff elections cost time and money I Ties (or near-ties) for second place I Preference ballots provide a method of holding an “instant-runoff" election: the Plurality-with-Elimination Method (PWE). 2. If no candidate has received a majority, then eliminate the candidate with the fewest first-place votes. 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until some candidate has a majority, then declare that candidate the winner. The Plurality-with-Elimination Method (x1.4) 1. Count the first-place votes. If some candidate receives a majority of the first-place votes, then that candidate is the winner. 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until some candidate has a majority, then declare that candidate the winner. The Plurality-with-Elimination Method (x1.4) 1. Count the first-place votes. If some candidate receives a majority of the first-place votes, then that candidate is the winner. 2. If no candidate has received a majority, then eliminate the candidate with the fewest first-place votes. The Plurality-with-Elimination Method (x1.4) 1. Count the first-place votes. If some candidate receives a majority of the first-place votes, then that candidate is the winner.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
    Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem Some announcements • Final reflections due on Monday. • You now have all of the methods and so you can begin analyzing the results of your election. Today’s Goals • We will discuss various fairness criteria and how the different voting methods violate these criteria. Last Time We have so far discussed the following voting methods. • Plurality Method (Majority Method) • Borda Count Method • Plurality-with-Elimination Method (IRV) • Pairwise Comparison Method • Method of Least Worst Defeat • Ranked Pairs Method • Approval Voting Fairness Criteria The following fairness criteria were developed by Kenneth Arrow, an economist in the 1940s. Economists are often interested in voting theories because of their impact on game theory. The mathematician John Nash (the subject of A Beautiful Mind) won the Nobel Prize in economics for his contributions to game theory. The Majority Criterion A majority candidate should always be the winner. Note that this does not say that a candidate must have a majority to win, only that such a candidate should not lose. Plurality, IRV, Pairwise Comparison, LWD, and Ranked Pairs all satisfy the Majority Criterion. The Majority Criterion The Borda Count Method violates the Majority Criterion. Number of voters 6 2 3 1st A B C 2nd B C D 3rd C D B 4th D A A Even though A had a majority of votes it only has 29 points. B is the winner with 32 points. Moral: Borda Count punishes polarizing candidates. The Condorcet Criterion A Condorcet candidate should always be the winner. Recall that a Condorcet Candidate is one that beats all other candidates in a head-to-head (pairwise) comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • Borda Count, Pairwise Comparison, Approval Voting, Fairness Criteria
    Day 2: Borda count, Pairwise Comparison, Approval Voting, Fairness Criteria Recall: Consider the voting system below. Who is the winner under the IRV method? 10 of the voters who had originally voted in the order Brown, Adams, Carter change their vote to favor the presumed winner changing those votes to Adams, Brown, Carter. Who is the winner under the IRV method? Monotonicity Criterion If voters change their votes to increase the preference for a candidate, it should not harm that candidate’s chances of winning. Boda count: (Another voting method, named for Jean-Charles de Borda) In this method, points are assigned to candidates based on their ranking; 1 point for last choice, 2 points for second-to-last choice, and so on. The point values for all ballots are totaled, and the candidate with the largest point total is the winner. Ex1) A camping club is deciding where to go on their next trip. The preference table is shown below, Find the winner under Borda count method. A = Arches, G = Grand Canyon, Y = Yosemite, Z = Zion Number of voters 12 5 4 9 6 10 1st Choice Y G Z A A Z 2nd Choice Z Y A Y Z G 3rd Choice G A G G Y A 4th Choice A Z Y Z G Y Since there are 4 choices 1th Place gets 4 points 2th Place gets 3 points 3th Place gets 2 points 4th Place gets 1point Number of voters 12 5 4 9 6 10 1st Choice Y G Z A A Z 4Point 12.4=48 5.4=20 4.4=16 9.4=36 6.4=24 10.4=40 2nd Choice Z Y A Y Z G 3Point 12.3=36 5.3=15 4.3=12 3rd Choice G A G G Y A 2Point 5.2=1o 10.2=20 4th Choice A Z Y Z G Y 1Point 12.1=12 Total points: Arches = 36 + 24 + 12 +10 +10 +20 +12 = 114 Grand Canyon = 106 Yosemite = 116 Zion = 124 Under the Borda count method Zion is the winner What’s Wrong with Borda Count? One potential flaw of Borda count is a candidate could receive a majority of the first- choice votes and still lose the election.
    [Show full text]
  • Institute of Economic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Gregor, Martin Working Paper Electoral competition for the 2+1 electoral rule and the close alternatives IES Working Paper, No. 06/2013 Provided in Cooperation with: Charles University, Institute of Economic Studies (IES) Suggested Citation: Gregor, Martin (2013) : Electoral competition for the 2+1 electoral rule and the close alternatives, IES Working Paper, No. 06/2013, Charles University in Prague, Institute of Economic Studies (IES), Prague This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/83314 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence
    [Show full text]
  • Ballotshare: an Exploration of the Design Space for Digital Voting in the Workplace
    NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Computers in Human Behavior. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, Vol. 41 (Dec. 2014)] DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.024. BallotShare: An Exploration of the Design Space for Digital Voting in the Workplace Vasilis Vlachokyriakos1, Paul Dunphy1, Nick Taylor2, Rob Comber1 and 1 Patrick Olivier 1 Culture Lab, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK 2 University of Dundee, Dundee, UK Abstract Digital voting is used to support group decision-making in a variety of contexts ranging from politics to mundane everyday collaboration, and the rise in popularity of digital voting has provided an opportunity to re-envision voting as a social tool that better serves democracy. A key design goal for any group decision- making system is the promotion of participation, yet there is little research that explores how the features of digital voting systems themselves can be shaped to configure participation appropriately. In this paper we propose a framework that explores the design space of digital voting from the perspective of participation. We ground our discussion in the design of a social media polling tool called Bal- lotShare; a first instantiation of our proposed framework designed to facilitate the study of decision-making practices in a workplace environment.
    [Show full text]