Difference between revisions of "Rad Plan Profile Selection Voting Mechanism and Method"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Terisippel (talk | contribs) |
Terisippel (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| Example Comment | | Example Comment | ||
| Proposed Change | | Proposed Change | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Teri Sippel Schmidt | ||
| + | | May 12, 2015 | ||
| + | | The modified Borda method requires the number of profiles to be selected is known in advance which is not possible since the TC may not have yet established a percent of effort. | ||
| + | | Set, but declare, the number of votes in advance. For long list, set at 4 or 5 votes. For short list set at 3 votes, period. | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Method== | == IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Method== | ||
Revision as of 13:43, 11 May 2015
This wiki page is to present two topics for further discussion and comments, as a result of the May 11th, 2015, IHE Rad Planning Committee tcon. Also see these meeting minutes.
This voting mechanism will be used 2x per annual cycle, starting with the 2015-2016 cycle. Once to select the short listed profile proposals. Once to select the final (detailed) profile proposals.
- IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Mechanism (what is the voting process?)
- IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Method (how do we collect votes?)
IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Mechanism
Do not edit this section. If you would like to add comments or clarifications, please do so in the next section.
- Typically 2 or 3 profiles are selected per year, so it is not a “straight up, majority rules” voting process.
- There are two options listed below proposed to be used for the Profile Selection process.
- 1.) Current Voting Mechanism: Simple Condorcet method
- The simple Condorcet method of ranking proposals (a unique value n for each of n options; highest value to first choice) was selected for use.
- For example, if there are 6 profile proposals, each voting member casts a vote from A (highest, worth 6 points) to F (lowest, worth 1 point) for each proposal. The two or three highest vote totals win.
- This has the unfortunate side effect of being able to vote “against” another proposal, sometimes unintentionally. The effect is majorities disenfranchising minorities.
- 2.) Proposed Voting Mechanism: modified Borda Count method
- Method used for multiple “winners”, and intended to allow smaller “interested parties” to place also. No voting against other profiles. Allows reasonably sized minority groups to participate.
- First select the number of "winners" (e.g., 1, 2, 3 or 4 profiles.) Calculate (n-1)**2. That is the weight of the first vote. Subsequent votes are worth half of the value.
- For example, to select 3 profiles, (3-1)**2 = 4. Then, each voting member gets three votes:
- One vote worth 4 points
- One vote worth 2 points
- One vote worth 1 point
Add Comments on IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Mechanism
Add your comments by editing this section.
| Your name | Date | Comment | Proposed Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example name | May 12, 2015 | Example Comment | Proposed Change |
| Teri Sippel Schmidt | May 12, 2015 | The modified Borda method requires the number of profiles to be selected is known in advance which is not possible since the TC may not have yet established a percent of effort. | Set, but declare, the number of votes in advance. For long list, set at 4 or 5 votes. For short list set at 3 votes, period. |
IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Method
Do not edit this section. If you would like to add comments or clarifications, please do so in the next section.
Add Comments to the IHE Rad Proposed Profile Voting Method
Add your comments by editing this section.
| Your name | Date | Comment | Proposed Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example name | May 12, 2015 | Example Comment | Proposed Change |