Supervisor: Anton Khirnov <>
Announced end of poll: 2023-12-05
Actual time poll closed:
Private poll (51 authorized voters)
Actual votes cast: 36
Number of winning choices:  (Poll actually has 5 winners)
This poll implements proportional representation. The combined-weights criterion is used to identify each voter's preferred set of choices.
Condorcet completion rule:    (What is this?)
Minimax
CIVS Ranked Pairs
Schulze/Beatpath
MAM
Condorcet-IRV
Bottom-2 Runoff
Schulze proportional ranking
Proportional

Poll description

Five people from the list below will become the members of the Community Committee (CC). Assign weights to each person according to how much you want them to be in the committee (higher weight = higher preference).

The system will assume you want to maximise the sum of weights of selected candidates. E.g. if X is given a weight of 10 and Y and Z have weights 8 and 6 respectively, then the voting algorithm will assume you prefer a committee with both Y and Z over one with X, because 14 > 10. However, giving Y and Z weight of 4 and 2 instead would have expressed that X is preferred to a combination of Y and Z, because 6 < 10.

Choices (in individual preference order)

  1. Rémi Denis-Courmont
  2. Dave Rice
  3. Thilo Borgmann
  4. Vittorio Giovara
  5. Michael Niedermayer
  6. Steven Liu
  7. Ronald Bultje
  8. Anton Khirnov
  9. Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  10. James Almer

Winning set of choices

The apparent winner of this poll was the set of choices ( 5,6,7,8,9,10 ):

  1. Michael Niedermayer
  2. Steven Liu
  3. Ronald Bultje
  4. Anton Khirnov
  5. Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  6. James Almer

Preference matrix

There are 210 possible sets of 6 choices that can be formed by selecting from the 10 choices. Of these, 15 sets were considered thoroughly, comparing against the 68 nearby (similar) sets that differ in just one choice.

This is the voting preference matrix, reporting maximal valid proportional preferences. Fractional digits indicate nonproportional preferences, which help break ties in proportional preference.

  123456789101112131415
1. (5,6,7,8,9,10)   -0.16 0.2 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.24 26.26 26.26 29.28 28.28 27.27 29.3 29.29 27.27
2. (2,5,7,8,9,10)   0.1 -0.16 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 23.24 26.26 28.27 27.27 28.28 29.29 28.28 28.27
3. (1,5,7,8,9,10)   0.1 0.11 -0.16 0.16 0.16 0.21 23.25 22.21 23.23 26.26 25.25 27.26 26.26 25.25
4. (1,5,6,8,9,10)   0.05 0.12 0.1 -0.17 0.16 0.16 22.24 23.21 27.27 25.24 26.26 28.27 27.27 26.26
5. (1,4,5,8,9,10)   0.08 0.09 0.05 0.12 -0.1 0.16 22.23 21.19 23.23 25.25 22.22 26.25 26.26 25.25
6. (1,4,5,7,9,10)   0.07 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.06 -0.16 18.2 19.18 23.23 24.24 22.22 26.25 25.25 23.23
7. (1,4,5,6,9,10)   0.01 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.1 -22.23 18.18 25.25 23.23 22.22 27.25 26.26 25.25
8. (1,3,4,5,6,10)   0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.09 0.07 -0.16 17.17 0.16 16.2 19.18 19.19 21.21
9. (2,3,4,5,6,7)   0.08 0.1 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 -0.14 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.2 0.19
10. (1,2,4,5,6,7)   0.06 0.05 0.1 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.14 -0.13 0.14 0.17 0.19 17.19
11. (1,3,4,5,6,7)   0.06 0.08 0.1 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.13 -0.13 0.16 0.16 17.19
12. (1,2,3,5,6,7)   0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.1 -0.19 0.17 0.16
13. (1,2,3,4,6,7)   0.06 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.15 -0.15 18.19
14. (1,2,3,4,5,7)   0.06 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.08 -16.16
15. (1,2,3,4,5,6)   0.07 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.1 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.1 -

Pairwise comparison

You can compare any two sets of choices. Just enter the numbers of the choices (from 1 to 10) in each set, with the numbers of one set's choices in the left column and the numbers of the other's in the right column.

Set 1Set 2

Nonproportional poll

The following gives the details of how the poll would have resulted if run on single choices, without proportional representation. This hypothetical poll defines the “individual preference order” used above.

Ranking of the choices

Winning choices are shown in bold.

Module for algorithm cschulze not valid