Approval voting

[puzzling]

 

Hypothetical situation:

After many rounds of voting in an election for 5 boardmembers where no candidate got a majority , a member moved to change the voting method to approval voting (so members could vote for more than 5 different candidates, some members had enough of it and these members voting for all candidates would give enough candidates a majority and finish the election)

Is such a motion valid and what kind of vote does it need for adoption?

Ps it is about approval voting ( vote for as many different candidates as you like) not about culumative voting (vote more times for the same candidate)

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/26/2023 at 9:16 AM, puzzling said:

After many rounds of voting in an election for 5 board members where no candidate got a majority , a member moved to change the voting method to approval voting (so members could vote for more than 5 different candidates, some members had enough of it and these members voting for all candidates would give enough candidates a majority and finish the election)

Is such a motion valid and what kind of vote does it need for adoption?

I am inclined to think that such a motion may be adopted. In my view, approval voting is comparable in nature to preferential voting (although it is not quite preferential voting, since the members do not actually indicate a preference), and therefore does not violate "the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member is entitled to one and only one vote on a question" in the same way that cumulative voting does. Therefore, I believe such a motion could be adopted. It would require a suspension of the rules, and therefore requires a 2/3 vote, as permitting members to vote for more candidates than there are available positions conflicts with the ordinary rules for elections.

Other methods that members may wish to consider to accomplish this objective, which would also require a suspension of the rules and a 2/3 vote, would be:

• Preferential voting
• Providing that a plurality vote is sufficient for election

If the members are unable to muster a 2/3 vote, and it is indeed their goal to simply elect someone so that the election is over, it seems to me the easiest way to accomplish this objective would be for the members who wish for the election to be over to simply change their votes to the five candidates who are currently in the lead.

Edited February 27, 2023 at 01:17 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

Josh, I agree with you that 

On 2/26/2023 at 11:28 AM, Josh Martin said:

In my view, approval voting is comparable in nature to preferential voting

but 45:62 says this about preferential voting: "It can be used with respect to the election of officers only if expressly authorized in the bylaws."

So I have to disagree that it can be done in the OP's situation by adoption of a motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/26/2023 at 12:52 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Josh, I agree with you that 

but 45:62 says this about preferential voting: "It can be used with respect to the election of officers only if expressly authorized in the bylaws."

So I have to disagree that it can be done in the OP's situation by adoption of a motion.

I concur with @Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

On 2/26/2023 at 12:52 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Josh, I agree with you that 

but 45:62 says this about preferential voting: "It can be used with respect to the election of officers only if expressly authorized in the bylaws."

So I have to disagree that it can be done in the OP's situation by adoption of a motion.

I have to agree, provided that board members are established as officers in the bylaws. 

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

I see approval voting as being much more analogous to filling a blank than to preferential voting. 

In both approval voting and filling a blank, you are choosing from multiple options

The two key differences I see between approval voting and filling a blank are:

1) In filling a blank there is a potentially ordered sequence for separate votes on each option.  With approval voting, though, there's no particular sequence, and if the assembly uses ballots for the election, then a single ballot contains a vote for each acceptable option which is acceptable to that member.

2)  In filling a blank, you stop voting on the options as soon as one achieves a majority, and that option fills the blank for a final vote on the main motion.  With approval voting, though, all the options are voted on, and it realizes the possibility that multiple options could be acceptable to a majority, but the option receiving the highest vote which is also a majority is chosen.

The reason I think that RONR says preferential voting needs to be in the bylaws is because of the factors in 45:69.   It denies the voters the option of casting their second-round vote after they saw the results from the first round, and because the candidate/proposition in last place on round one is automatically eliminated if no candidate received a majority of first-preference votes.  You're taking away some fairly important options from the members, and depriving an eligible and willing candidate in round two, thus there ought to be bylaws authorization.

Approval voting, however, has neither of the features in 45:69, thus it doesn't seem to me that it would require bylaw authorization to use it.  And see 12:102 for the explanation that filling a blank treats each of the proposals as a separate question, so that means it does not violate the fundamental principle of one vote per member on a question.  Similarly approval voting lets you approve (or not) of each option, and since each is a separate question, it doesn't violate the one vote per member rule.

So I don't think bylaws authorization is needed for approval voting, even if used for choosing officers.  Perhaps future editions of RONR could expressly address approval voting?

[puzzling]

On 2/27/2023 at 8:43 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

I see approval voting as being much more analogous to filling a blank than to preferential voting. 

In both approval voting and filling a blank, you are choosing from multiple options

The two key differences I see between approval voting and filling a blank are:

1) In filling a blank there is a potentially ordered sequence for separate votes on each option.  With approval voting, though, there's no particular sequence, and if the assembly uses ballots for the election, then a single ballot contains a vote for each acceptable option which is acceptable to that member.

2)  In filling a blank, you stop voting on the options as soon as one achieves a majority, and that option fills the blank for a final vote on the main motion.  With approval voting, though, all the options are voted on, and it realizes the possibility that multiple options could be acceptable to a majority, but the option receiving the highest vote which is also a majority is chosen.

The reason I think that RONR says preferential voting needs to be in the bylaws is because of the factors in 45:69.   It denies the voters the option of casting their second-round vote after they saw the results from the first round, and because the candidate/proposition in last place on round one is automatically eliminated if no candidate received a majority of first-preference votes.  You're taking away some fairly important options from the members, and depriving an eligible and willing candidate in round two, thus there ought to be bylaws authorization.

Approval voting, however, has neither of the features in 45:69, thus it doesn't seem to me that it would require bylaw authorization to use it.  And see 12:102 for the explanation that filling a blank treats each of the proposals as a separate question, so that means it does not violate the fundamental principle of one vote per member on a question.  Similarly approval voting lets you approve (or not) of each option, and since each is a separate question, it doesn't violate the one vote per member rule.

So I don't think bylaws authorization is needed for approval voting, even if used for choosing officers.  Perhaps future editions of RONR could expressly address approval voting?

Also see 46:37 - 39 Viva-voce election

More or less the same as by  12:102 even better 12:103 is just approval voting (just not for persons) 

12:103 has no limit on the number of approved options by a member.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/27/2023 at 3:43 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

I see approval voting as being much more analogous to filling a blank than to preferential voting. 

In both approval voting and filling a blank, you are choosing from multiple options

The two key differences I see between approval voting and filling a blank are:

1) In filling a blank there is a potentially ordered sequence for separate votes on each option.  With approval voting, though, there's no particular sequence, and if the assembly uses ballots for the election, then a single ballot contains a vote for each acceptable option which is acceptable to that member.

2)  In filling a blank, you stop voting on the options as soon as one achieves a majority, and that option fills the blank for a final vote on the main motion.  With approval voting, though, all the options are voted on, and it realizes the possibility that multiple options could be acceptable to a majority, but the option receiving the highest vote which is also a majority is chosen.

The reason I think that RONR says preferential voting needs to be in the bylaws is because of the factors in 45:69.   It denies the voters the option of casting their second-round vote after they saw the results from the first round, and because the candidate/proposition in last place on round one is automatically eliminated if no candidate received a majority of first-preference votes.  You're taking away some fairly important options from the members, and depriving an eligible and willing candidate in round two, thus there ought to be bylaws authorization.

Approval voting, however, has neither of the features in 45:69, thus it doesn't seem to me that it would require bylaw authorization to use it.  And see 12:102 for the explanation that filling a blank treats each of the proposals as a separate question, so that means it does not violate the fundamental principle of one vote per member on a question.  Similarly approval voting lets you approve (or not) of each option, and since each is a separate question, it doesn't violate the one vote per member rule.

So I don't think bylaws authorization is needed for approval voting, even if used for choosing officers.  Perhaps future editions of RONR could expressly address approval voting?

I agree that preferential voting is inferior to repeated ballots, but substantially superior to plurality voting, in that the ultimate victor has at least partially-hearted support from a majority of voters. 

I do not think it violates on-person-one-vote in any way, since when the music stops, each person who casts a ballot will have cast at most one vote for one candidate.  It's true that it does not provide full information between rounds of voting which could affect  future votes, but it does at least partially address the matter by asking the question: If your favorite does not win, then what?"  It does not provide information beyond that single hypothetical, but it does attempt to do what can be done within the limits of holding only one single round of balloting.  I do support the rule that using it must be provided for in the bylaws, if for no other reason than that there are multiple ways of counting preference ballots, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.  It is mathematically provable that there is no perfect method of balloting.

Approval voting is not mentioned in RONR, so we don't have a good feel for what the authorship might think of it.  I think it's a stretch to say that it is in the nature of filling blanks.  We are told [in 46:1] that there is, in effect, such a procedure and it is called Nominations.  Approval voting, in my view, is more in the nature of casting votes--hence the name.  But rather than being one-person-one-vote, it is one person (n - 1) votes, where n is the number of candidates.  Technically one might cast n votes, but voting for everyone does not indicate any preference and is, in effect, an abstention.  So I think on that point it should require a bylaws provision, since it violates the one-vote principle. 

Approval voting shares the advantage of a single one-and-done ballot, but here, the voter is operating with even less--nearly zero--information.  With no way to express any preference, a voter is forced to give the same weight to someone they vastly prefer as to someone they can barely tolerate.  Adding up all those votes does provide us with a number, it's true. But stripping out all the ranking information raises the question of what, if anything, that number represents.  It yields a choice, not so much of the most qualified as the most inoffensive. 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/27/2023 at 3:43 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

I see approval voting as being much more analogous to filling a blank than to preferential voting. 

In which case, it absolutely would need to be in the bylaws to be authorized.

On 2/27/2023 at 3:43 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

And see 12:102 for the explanation that filling a blank treats each of the proposals as a separate question, so that means it does not violate the fundamental principle of one vote per member on a question.

Except that 12:102 does not apply when the vote is by ballot, 12:103 does.

On 2/27/2023 at 5:47 AM, puzzling said:

12:103 has no limit on the number of approved options by a member.

I do not believe that is true (as detailed in the next paragraph). It would be true to say "approval voting has no limit on the number of approved options by a member," and that is why approval voting most definitely violates the fundamental principle, because you are voting for up to as many candidates as there are, no matter how many positions are open.

12:103 refers to a ballot or roll call vote. There is a limit, because if a person indicated more choices than there were open positions on a ballot, that would be considered an illegal vote as per 45:32.

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

On 2/28/2023 at 3:25 PM, Atul Kapur said:

On 2/27/2023 at 12:43 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

I see approval voting as being much more analogous to filling a blank than to preferential voting. 

In which case, it absolutely would need to be in the bylaws to be authorized.

I didn't follow the breadcrumbs here.  RONR doesn't require bylaws authorization for filling a blank, so if approval voting is akin to filling a blank, I didn't make the connection for why that would lead to a conclusion that bylaws authorization would be needed for approval voting.

 

On 2/28/2023 at 2:24 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Approval voting, in my view, is more in the nature of casting votes--hence the name.  But rather than being one-person-one-vote, it is one person (n - 1) votes, where n is the number of candidates.  Technically one might cast n votes, but voting for everyone does not indicate any preference and is, in effect, an abstention.  So I think on that point it should require a bylaws provision, since it violates the one-vote principle. 

On 2/28/2023 at 3:25 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Except that 12:102 does not apply when the vote is by ballot, 12:103 does.

The point I was wishing to make from 12:102 is that instead of seeing the sequence as being a single vote on the question of which of these options should fill the blank, it is a series of votes on separate questions...should option A fill the blank?  should option B fill the blank?  And approval voting can be seen as -- not a single question of who should be elected -- but a series of separate votes even if done on a ballot...Would you approve of candidate A being elected?  Would you approve of candidate B being elected?  Listing the candidate on the ballot means it's a yes to the question of whether you approve of that candidate.  So in the same way, approval voting can be seen as a series of separate votes on separate questions, combined with a rule that says the candidate with the most approval from that series of questions is elected.  And if it's separate questions, there is not a violation of the one-vote-per-member-per-question.

On that note, I suppose I should clarify that since RONR doesn't address approval voting, per se, we don't have a definition-in-common of exactly what it is we're discussing here.  Since there are varying incarnations of it, I should have been more specific about one particular aspect.  If it is seen (as mentioned above) as a one-and-done process and then whoever has the most approval is the winner ...even if it's just a plurality...then 44:11 says a previously established rule allowing such is needed, and if it's for officer election then it must be in the bylaws.  However, approval voting can also be combined with a requirement for a majority for election, and subsequent rounds of voting if no majority was achieved on the first round.  With the majority requirement for election, it bypasses the 44:11 issues.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:56 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

So in the same way, approval voting can be seen as a series of separate votes on separate questions, combined with a rule that says the candidate with the most approval from that series of questions is elected.  And if it's separate questions, there is not a violation of the one-vote-per-member-per-question.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but it strikes me as a fairly tortuous interpretation that does not stand close scrutiny.

It reminds me of a riddle that Abe Lincoln was fond of: "If the tail of a dog were called a leg, how many legs would a dog have?"

Lincoln's answer: "Four.  Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one."

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

I'm glad this subject came up on the forums, as I've been thinking of posing the question here just to see what others thought about it.  I was pretty happy when others responded so we could have a debate on the merits.

Mr. Novosielski wrote, "I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but it strikes me as a fairly tortuous interpretation that does not stand close scrutiny."

So let me challenge the thinking this way:  Do you have trouble viewing the filling-a-blank process as being a series of votes on separate questions, which is how RONR describes it?  If not, then why is it harder to see approval voting that way? 

I'm truly not asking for the purpose of criticizing.  It's a genuine question to some pretty well-versed people here.  I wanna know if there's something I'm missing.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 at 07:58 PM by Alicia Percell, PRP
accidentally posted before finished writing it

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:56 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

I didn't follow the breadcrumbs here.  RONR doesn't require bylaws authorization for filling a blank, so if approval voting is akin to filling a blank, I didn't make the connection for why that would lead to a conclusion that bylaws authorization would be needed for approval voting.

Because it violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law, specifically that each "member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question." 25:9 & 45:2.

On 3/2/2023 at 4:56 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

instead of seeing the sequence as being a single vote on the question of which of these options should fill the blank, it is a series of votes on separate questions...should option A fill the blank?  should option B fill the blank?  And approval voting can be seen as -- not a single question of who should be elected -- but a series of separate votes even if done on a ballot...Would you approve of candidate A being elected?  Would you approve of candidate B being elected?

The difference is that Filling a Blank does not violate the fundamental principle because a member is only voting on one question at a time (Question 1-Does Option A fill the blank? Y/N. Once Question 1 is decided then may need to go to Question 2-Does Option B fill the blank? Y/N. etc)
Approval Voting is voting for all options to fill the blank, simultaneously. So I disagree that "approval voting can be seen as a series of separate votes on separate questions." 

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

On 3/2/2023 at 11:58 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Because it violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law, specifically that each "member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question." 25:9 & 45:2.

Do you think that preferential voting violates the one-vote rule?  The voter gets to list multiple people on the ballot.  I get that only one of the listed candidates is counted per round of tabulation, but still you're allowing them on a single ballot to express multiple options for who gets elected.  If your concern is whether people are only voting on one question AT A TIME, then preferential voting lets people submit one ballot that answers multiple questions simultaneously...for top choice, for second choice, etc.  RONR allows a single ballot to ask multiple questions at a time.

Preferential voting uses a single ballot to measure the relative approval of one voter for Candidate A vs. Candidate B.  Approval voting doesn't ask the individual voter to rank relative levels of approval for the candidates, but it asks "How many of these would be acceptable to you?" and uses all the ballots collectively to measure the approval level from all the voters for Candidate A vs. Candidate B with each voter weighed equally.  Isn't that a pretty good measure of the will of the majority if it can be assessed which of the candidates has the broadest approval from the membership?  The question being asked isn't technically the direct question of which one of these should be elected.

Edited March 2, 2023 at 08:25 PM by Alicia Percell, PRP
added final 2 sentences of 1st paragraph

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/2/2023 at 2:42 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

I'm glad this subject came up on the forums, as I've been thinking of posing the question here just to see what others thought about it.  I was pretty happy when others responded so we could have a debate on the merits.

Mr. Novosielski wrote, "I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but it strikes me as a fairly tortuous interpretation that does not stand close scrutiny."

So let me challenge the thinking this way:  Do you have trouble viewing the filling-a-blank process as being a series of votes on separate questions, which is how RONR describes it?  If not, then why is it harder to see approval voting that way? 

I'm truly not asking for the purpose of criticizing.  It's a genuine question to some pretty well-versed people here.  I wanna know if there's something I'm missing.

I do not have trouble with blank-filling as being a series of votes, because when it occurs, it is done literally as a series of individual votes, ordered in a reasonable sequence.  In the context of an election, there is an explicit blank-filling process, viz. Nominations, which closely follows the form of blank filling, in that:

• The member offering the suggestion need not be recognized
• The suggestion need not be seconded.
• The chair accepts and announces the suggestion.
• A member can make only one suggestion per blank to be filled.
• While suggestions are open, they are debatable.
• The process does not decide the main question, which must ultimately be put to a final vote.

There is a distinct difference, though.  Nominations mirror the process of collecting suggestions, but not the distilling of choices down to one before proceeding to a final vote.  In the context of an election, that process is, in effect, the election itself.  It accomplishes both the voting on suggestions [12:102 ff.] and the final adoption--the latter because, unlike most questions, rejecting an election is not an option.

In 12:103, we see that when a ballot vote occurs on filling blanks, each member marks, for each blank to be filled, one preference--not as many as may be acceptable.  This mirrors an election ballot. So closely, in fact, that write-in suggestions are valid in both cases, even if not suggested/nominated earlier.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/2/2023 at 3:17 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

Do you think that preferential voting violates the one-vote rule?  The voter gets to list multiple people on the ballot.  I get that only one of the listed candidates is counted per round of tabulation, but still you're allowing them on a single ballot to express multiple options for who gets elected.  If your concern is whether people are only voting on one question AT A TIME, then preferential voting lets people submit one ballot that answers multiple questions simultaneously...for top choice, for second choice, etc.  RONR allows a single ballot to ask multiple questions at a time.

The term "preferential voting" does not have only one meaning. 

The method described in RONR, called single transferrable vote, or sometimes instant runoff voting (STV/IR), is an attempt to duplicate--to the extent possible in one round of voting--the effect of multiple ballots in the classical method.  There is no question that a member may express multiple preferences in multiple rounds of voting in the classical method, but just as with STV/IR, only one of those votes will have any effect--the one cast in the final deciding round.  So by that measure, neither method violates one-person-one-vote.

But there are other types of preference-based balloting.  One significant class is the Borda count.  There are several variants, but the all use the same type of ballot as in STV/IR; candidates are ranked in order of preference.  But the similarity ends there.  There are no multiple rounds of voting.  Rather, for each ballot cast, candidates are assigned a number of points based on how highly preferred they are by that voter. Totals are simply accumulated and added together.  In that respect it shares the characteristic (defect?) of approval voting that it cannot properly be said to embody one-person-one vote.

Another type is the Condorcet method, which attempts to simulate all possible head-to-head matches, using the same preferential ballot data, but using it to determine the winner of each pairwise contest, and awarding election to whoever is preferred by the greatest number of voters.  Again, variations exist.  And it's not clear to me that it passes the one-vote test.  It might, but it makes my head hurt to think about it.

Each of these methods solves some of the paradoxes that arise in the others, and introduces paradoxes of its own.  But I don't think it would be possible to simply authorize preferential voting in the bylaws without specifying what type.

On 3/2/2023 at 3:17 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

Do you think that preferential voting violates the one-vote rule?  The voter gets to list multiple people on the ballot.  I get that only one of the listed candidates is counted per round of tabulation, but still you're allowing them on a single ballot to express multiple options for who gets elected.  If your concern is whether people are only voting on one question AT A TIME, then preferential voting lets people submit one ballot that answers multiple questions simultaneously...for top choice, for second choice, etc.  RONR allows a single ballot to ask multiple questions at a time.

Preferential voting uses a single ballot to measure the relative approval of one voter for Candidate A vs. Candidate B.  Approval voting doesn't ask the individual voter to rank relative levels of approval for the candidates, but it asks "How many of these would be acceptable to you?" and uses all the ballots collectively to measure the approval level from all the voters for Candidate A vs. Candidate B with each voter weighed equally.  Isn't that a pretty good measure of the will of the majority if it can be assessed which of the candidates has the broadest approval from the membership?  The question being asked isn't technically the direct question of which one of these should be elected.

I've responded to some of this above.  With respect to approval voting, my major objection is that in determining the overall preference, it ignores the individual preferences.  The rank each voter assigns or could assign to the candidates, is simply discarded.  As I said in a prior post, this is more likely to select the most inoffensive candidate rather then the most preferable.

I would rank approval voting above plurality voting, but below the various preferential types, which in turn I rank below classical multi-round balloting which preserves the preferences of voters in a performative step-wise manner, and stands alone in allowing full information between rounds, by which a voter can dynamically respond to previous rounds, even by moving to reopen nominations.

Edited March 2, 2023 at 10:16 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/2/2023 at 3:17 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

Do you think that preferential voting violates the one-vote rule?  The voter gets to list multiple people on the ballot.  I get that only one of the listed candidates is counted per round of tabulation,

And that is why it does not violate the fundamental principle. In each round of tabulation, only one listed candidate receives that voter's vote. That is, the individual member's vote is given to one candidate. Yes, if that candidate is no longer eligible, the ballot says who will receive the member's vote in the next round of voting. But that's not relevant in the current round. In each round the member's vote goes to one candidate.

In approval voting, multiple candidates receive the member's vote in each round. That is, the individual member votes for / gives support to  multiple candidates in a single round.

On 3/2/2023 at 3:17 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

Isn't that a pretty good measure of the will of the majority if it can be assessed which of the candidates has the broadest approval from the membership?

Respectfully, that is irrelevant to the question in this thread. I am not arguing the relative merits of approval voting vs preferential ballot — I am simply saying that approval voting would need to be authorized in the bylaws.