Weighted Voting for Epoch Elections

[timber token]

Simple Summary
This proposal aims to enable a weighted voting system for Epoch 8 and future epochs. This assists in further diversifying the voting power of individuals so they can vote for several qualified candidates rather than one.

Abstract
The request for a way to vote for multiple nominees has been an ongoing discussion since the prior epoch. As snapshot evolves and has enabled a split voting system that utilises quadratic voting it is now possible to enable this feature. This would enable voters to split their available vILV amongst as many candidates as they’d like.

Rationale
It should be clear that these features are additive to the existing system. Voting will still be blind and no one will be able to see the outcome until after voting has concluded. Also if voters wish to vote for a single candidate it is still possible.

Most democratic government bodies have voting systems that enable voters to vote for multiple candidates so that voters can better select candidates that represent their preferences. In the case of Illuvium that feels important considering there may be 2+ candidates that are relevant to your personal voting criteria. If many voters felt that they both fit well however one fit more than others then general sentiment wouldn’t match the overall outcome.

For example if we had Jerry, Beth and Summer all running for council. Let’s say Jerry and Beth were very pro community and Summer was against it. However, Beth was still a much better candidate than Jerry. Then with single choice voting even if 80% of the community collectively preferred the beliefs of both Jerry and Beth they may not be elected. With this updated system if the voter had 10 vILV he would be able to put 8 vILV towards Beth and 2 vILV towards Jerry. This better accommodates their preference as they think both candidates are appropriate.

Wanted to begin this discussion and see what the community thinks.

@ruby wave Thank you

[ruby wave]

<@&814435151307866142>

[merry harness]

I think this is a great way to handle election’s especially now with sub councils.
We have so many fantastic candidates across all of the categories. I will not be able to choose just one person per sub council as I feel there are candidates that are equally qualified and passionate but possibly for different reasons. I also like that we have the ability to use some votes to show support and encouragement to new candidates who have put themselves forward to gain experience and learn about the governance process. They may not get in to council this epoch but may grow in the future to be great council members. Thanks for explaining this clearly so that people can utilise this feature of split voting.

[crisp parrot]

I also just want to clarify that this is existing functionality that Snapshot has built - Using this weighted voting system would incur no extra development work.

[surreal scarab]

Personally I would like to vote for my preferred 4 or 5. I was debating voting for my second favorite in every sub-council since my favorites are very popular and I imagined they would get voted in by a large margin. This proposal fixes this issue I was personally grappling with.

It also has the potential to fix another issue I saw with the 4th place candidate wining with very few votes. This still is a potential, but much less likely and the elected should be more representative of the staker’s preferences.

[timber token]

I've been tryna explain this to myself and others cause I had trouble putting it into words and tried so hard in my initial message here. But you just summed it up way better

[dense girder]

Wholeheartedly support this. There’s a lot of really good candidates and people should have the option to support more than one if they wish. Good looks @timber token

[upbeat quarry]

Are there conditions to weighted voting such as limiting the choices to X number like 3? Or is there no limit and you can actually vote for every single candidate if you wanted to?

Additionally, are you assigning vILV or percentage? If its vILV is there a minimum amount that can be alloted?

[timber token]

Okay so these are all great questions

There's basically no customisability from the snapshot end. We cannot limit the amount of divisions and how many candidates people can vote for and so on.

Also you assign percentage. You do this by selecting numbers and then it auto divides your vILV based on the representative percentage. The image at the top sums this up pretty well. There's no minimums or maximums. U have x amount of vILV in your wallet. Then u choose the percentage split amongst candidates and then it divides it amongst them

[upbeat quarry]

Oh nice. Percentage assigning is definitely preferred. Makes things easier.

I definitely see the pros of having weighted voting. This was something that was being asked by a lot before.

Considering the smaller pool of candidates per sub council as opposed to 20-30 candidates, this makes sense to be implemented.

[rough terrace]

My biggest concern is that top two holders would be able to vote in two candidates of their choosing that way. But if we look at the past elections it's not the case and it should still be pretty fair.

I like the idea and I definitely agree that being able to show support to more nominees instead of just one is a great idea and should be implemented, especially if we don't need any more dev work.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that vILV is calculated before the vote split, but that of course will be taken care of.

p.s. you can test weighted voting on snapshot, it's easy and intuitive and shouldn't be a problem to anyone.

[hallow pagoda]

Keep in mind that everything Snapshot is doing can also be done (and more) by the individual just distributing their ILV into different wallets. This is just a QOL improvement (that frankly encourages them to not try to get around the quadratic voting math), not a fundamental change to the way elections are done. If we were to make a change to do some form of ranked voting or putting forward an entire panel of 5 candidates that should flow through an ICCP. I do not believe this meets that threshold but it is good to see community feedback is generally positive for this QOL change.

[surreal scarab]

If I understand correctly… that with staking being a requirement for vILV it would be more than an inconvenience to split your vote. You would need to unstake and restate/relock.

[surreal scarab]

@analog spoke I would love your input, since you have done a lot of analysis of past elections. If a single large wallet of vILV would gain a large advantage with this proposal. Being able to vote multiple candidates in instead of just one, just with the amount of vILV they hold.

[rough terrace]

Yeah, that's why it was voted in before the last election. It was a good change and it should stop people from using multiple accounts to get more voting power.

[rough terrace]

My lazy, fast and not-at-all thorough analysis:

It is difficult to determine how much vILV is required to be elected, as the only relevant information we have is from the last election, where 547+ vILV was needed to be elected.

Assuming that the two biggest wallets that voted in the previous two elections had ~715 and ~600 vILV, respectively, they could have voted for any candidate, and they would have been elected to the council. However, splitting their votes would provide a significant advantage to some candidates but not an automatic election. This is a positive change in my opinion.

Regarding the voting outcome with the new sub-councils, it is unclear what the minimum threshold would be to get in. Here is my personal opinion:

• With no change and no weighted voting, each sub-council, particularly marketing and strategy, will have 2-3 people with a significant amount of vILV supporting them, and the last place would be even lower than the ~550 required in the previous election.
• With a change and added weighted voting, the votes will be more evenly distributed across candidates, and it will require more votes to get elected. The top 2 wallets should be able to either support one candidate and elect them to the council or push multiple candidates closer to the council, but they should not be able to directly elect two of them.

I can't seem to find anything wrong with this proposal. This is something community was asking for quite some time.

[timber token]

Pretty much sums up my thinking. It will allow the community to vote in more of a collective rather than 2-3 'popular' candidates and will more evenly distribute the total voting power

[analog spoke]

It’s an interesting question. Overall, I’m in favor of this proposal and style of voting as long as quadratic voting remains in place (ILV = vILV^2). Without that, the biggest wallets absolutely would have total control over candidate selection. Thanks to @rough terrace for the quick analysis, and I agree with the assessment.
The two biggest things (aside from quadratic voting) are 1) voter turnout, and 2) blind voting. Turnout is the ultimate neutralizer to big, engaged wallets. This is my primary concern this election, as overall Discord engagement is down. It’s obvious, but the more people that participate, the more democratic the process. This past election, the biggest wallets could have coordinated to take 1-2 spots out of five (they likely didn't and coalesced behind Kieran, which was an impact of blind voting). The higher engagement of December 2021, there was no chance of a big wallet getting a guaranteed spot. November 2022 was a different story. We just need to do what we can to drive engagement and participation to overcome this issue.
Blind voting was huge last epoch, as previously the ability to mobilize wallets in the closing minutes of an election was enough to swing winners of a position or two. Not being able to see if you’re voting for someone already “guaranteed” a spot created a whole different dynamic. Only being able to choose one person, you have the personal game theory of “do I vote for the person I most want, even if I think they will get in because other people also want them, or do I vote for my second/third choice to give them a boost to earn a spot?” Switching to weighted voting largely eliminates that dilemma, and people can put all their weight behind a single candidate, or appropriately divide their voting power across their preferred council. It becomes more of a genuine preference choice versus trying to game the system.
While it’s a concern to have decision power centralized in the hands of the biggest wallets, those are also the individuals who most likely want qualified individuals in positions to add value to the organization. As I’ve analyzed for every election so far, there’s been very little difference between the “whale’s choice” candidate and the “shrimp’s choice,” so in my opinion, enabling individuals to allocate their voting power across their preferred candidates is a win for the overall organization. (if anyone wants to look at all the past election data, i've put a link to the sheet in my profile for now)

[edgy frigate]

I support this. I had thought about voting for my second candidate thinking my first would almost certainly get in without my vote.
This is a better approach.

[wind peak]

Not sure if it plays out to 8 votes Jerry 2 votes Kate. Would it not be hurting Jerry that obvious you really want over Kate? To me, my initial reaction is it makes the council a BRO game. Its almost you are playing the field to make everyone happy, creating this celebrity type panel of people collaborating and not voting for who you want to do and get the job done, a second problem is does this not make bigger wallets or spread out wallets more effective and the smaller guy is now dilluting his vote?

[teal yarrow]

I fully support people being able to vote however they want. As others have said, as long as the weighted system stays in place I'm 💯 % behind this.

[blissful sun]

Could we explore the rank choice voting option? That is a great system as well and looks like snapshot supports it. And also agree to keep the weighting

for those that don't know what rank choice voting is

[ruby wave]

I looked at and tested all options personally, and found that Weighted Voting was the least change wise and easiest to understand vs just single choice voting

[hallow pagoda]

Ranked choice voting the way that Snapshot does it is VERY confusing both on the front end and especially on the back-end for people trying to understand what happened in the election. (I say this from personal experience having recently used it in another DAO). We discussed this in the council and don't support it for that reason alone. Our governance process is already reasonably complex for people to understand. If there's not an easy way to just add up votes and see who won, people may lose confidence in the system.

[blissful sun]

ya doesn't seem to support quadradic voting or multi 'winners' either - nvm maybe they will improve on it bc think it's better if it made sense practically

[hallow pagoda]

It is a good idea and makes sense practically speaking (i.e. vote for your favorites in order). But with a multiple winner scenario the math gets wonky and their platform needs upgrades to make it more transparent. That's one of the reasons we had discussed potentially building our own solution for voting.

[blissful sun]

makes sense

[ruby wave]

Eventually we can build out our own system but for now this is what we have and IMO adds greater functionality for those wishing to use it. If you don't want to use it, there is no need to.

[wraith canopy]

It’s possible to do this. Only downside I can see is added complexity for DAO members new to snapshot voting.

[warm bobcat]

I think this makes sense 100% just if the software can do what we want.

[celest bolt]

Communication on the new system sounds like a great project for a marketing sub council 😋

[fleet gull]

I really like this idea and I'm in full support of it. This will give more options to voters without taking anything away from the previous model (if you don't like it you can just allocate 100% of your vote to your favorite candidates).

My two concerns would have been that it would affect quadratic voting or that it could take Dev time to make it work adding extra complexity so close to the new election. As all of this is addressed and will not immpact it I see no valid reason to not implement it.

I am Tholky and I approve this message 💯👍

[dense girder]

Do we have a personal connection to the folks at snapshot?

[turbid sequoia]

Agree that Quadratic Voting is a must!

I would support a voting system that forced everyone to vote for 3 people exactly,
60% to 1st
30% to 2nd
10% to 3rd
with everyone having the same % split on their 3 votes...

This way everyone's votes are split equally, makes the construction of the council more evenly democratic

But I can see many not being a fan of that idea

I am not in support of the proposal as it is because it gives an option to small wallets that further decreases their voting power and gives larger wallets the option to not split their vote receiving a defacto boost in power (which is anyway higher than smaller wallets) this especially seems like a bad idea with the voting turnout decreasing in recent epochs (a trend that will likely continue until we are generating more substantial revenue)

does seem that my take is a minority though

[celest bolt]

Large and small wallets would both have the same options to vote how they choose, one candidate or multiple. No wallet would have their voting power (vILV) increased or decreased. There are a few comments further up that already explain this in detail better than I can. 👍

[wraith canopy]

They’ll need something to do that’s for sure.

[fleet gull]

But if smaller wallets don't want to "dilute" their voting power they don't have to. I really don't see how giving this option would directly impact them in a negative way. The choice would remain 100% in voters hands

[dense girder]

Comes down to just proper education on the pros and cons of the available options imo. Give people a one pager with further details on the importance of governance, some education/research tools. Could even find creative ways to incentivize people to come out to vote but that’s an extra lol.

[wraith canopy]

This is a good point. This gives the largest wallets the ability to split their power so they they could push more candidates into the running.

[ruby wave]

I don’t think forcing people into voting a certain way is the right approach,l, nor is it an option at this point. I think people dive off on these narratives that “whales could skew the vote” well this could be the case if they really wanted to either way they could game the system. But why would they do it in a negative way, if they hold so much ILV that they could do this then what incentive is there for them to nuke their own bags by attempting something nefarious. They want the best for their ILV too and in turn the project.

[wraith canopy]

It’s possible that the ability to split a wallet’s votes will discourage splitting the actual ILV between multiple wallets (which would greatly increase vILV power)

[ruby wave]

This is what I agreed with too

[turbid sequoia]

I'm fully aware of that, I'm just pointing out that if small wallets decided to use that option because "oooh look i can vote for more than 1 person" and larger wallets decided "I dont want to dilute my voting power" then larger wallets opinions because even higher valued

But I understand why this is a minority view, as @fleet gull rightly says thats up to voters,
@ruby wave I'm not saying that this will be used for nefarious purposes, im not a conspiracy nut lol,

[turbid sequoia]

The fact that only staked tokens can vote is already a blocker and this proposal doesnt change the fact that splitting still further increases vILV in total

[dense girder]

It kinda feels like there’s a general lacking of communication and education around the importance of governance/voting for holders so this seems like a good opportunity to put forth some extra effort to provide education on how it works so smaller holders don’t split their vote just for the hell of it, because they’re simply uneducated.

[wraith canopy]

For sure. Not as significant as the staking hurdle.

[timber token]

I would have liked to add rules of this kind. But as it stands snapshot doesnt have that sort of functionality. Its either add as is or dont. We can try build our own systems in future epochs

[wraith canopy]

OFF-TOPIC: One setting that would be nice to add is DELEGATION. Some of us have multiple wallets staking due to security purposes.

One breaking issue is that it would make Sybil attacks easier. So never mind about delegation.

[ruby wave]

Not wrong but at the same time splitting votes among every small wallet could have significant implications. I’m just of the opinion that options aren’t a bad thing, and limiting people or forcing them into things isn’t ideal either. Education is probably the key thing to takeaway.

[fleet gull]

That is a problem that affects all democratic processes and I totally agree that we should look into fun and engaging ways to tackle voter education. But that seem like a whole other conversation that I would really like to have

[wraith canopy]

Learn2Earn➡️Vote2Earn

[dense girder]

For sure a different conversation and something I think the new marketing sub-council should include as a focus before epoch 9

[turbid sequoia]

This is the main issue, you hit the nail on the head for why I raised my point

Smaller holders have less power and therefore less incentive to spend a bunch of time getting educated on governance because "how much does my vote matter anyways?" whereas larger wallets have strong incentives to get educated on governance since they have a stronger vote

adding additional options like this only further complicates a system that is already experiencing a decrease in voter turnout

I have tried to spread governance education in the past and theres a really low demand for it, especially in non-whale audiences

[turbid sequoia]

More options is not always a good thing

[ruby wave]

I don’t think interest in governance education is the problem, I think interest in the space and the markets in general is. People are simply not just in the majority here for governance, people in general in the space are here for money

[dense girder]

I still think it’s worth adding, personally. Give people the option. It may be an unfortunate side effect that uneducated people may inadvertently skew their voting power but ultimately the people who are most aligned with the dao and most in-the-loop will hopefully understand how the system works. And in the future, we can take a fresh look at how to turn voter education into something more fun for people to learn about.

[fleet gull]

Economically speaking it usually is. But some argue that having way too many options on simple decisions can lead to a non optimal outcome.

In this specific case I don't belive it will but I understand your point and concern

[turbid sequoia]

so why add extra choices to a governance system thats already experiencing decreasing voter turnout when those additional choices also come with the new for additional education

Blind Voting and changing voting to be only staked wallets were both done for very valid reasons that were worth the re-education required

This change is 0% vital, its just somewhat of a QOL improvement for some, with the downside of re-education for everyone and decision paralysis

I'm not saying it isnt a cool idea, im saying its not good enough to require changing our current system

[timber token]

I disagree

[dense girder]

I have to believe that people won’t just spray and pray their options at the polls just because they can

[turbid sequoia]

cool

[ruby wave]

I would be hopeful that most people that can set up seed phrases and self custody of their money can understand how a % based voting works just by looking at it, but maybe I’m an optimist

[timber token]

extra choices improve a system with low turnout. It means less voters can collectively vote in a group of individuals. In a system without this you end up with voters choosing 1 or 2 options and the bottom 3 candidates have next to 0 votes. Which isnt representative of voter sentiment

[dense girder]

I could understand a concern that someone voting may just pick 3 random names just because they can, but in this case let’s consider the kind of person who knows how to stake $ilv, knows what snapshot is, knows how to vote. Etc.

[timber token]

Kieran had more votes than the next 4 combined. Similar with Deraji and Blickter. This system eliminates that issue

[ruby wave]

Doesn’t eliminate, but gives options for it not to happen

[turbid sequoia]

I'm not genuinely concerned about anyone straight up "spraying and praying" lol

[timber token]

I'll be the first to say that if this system existed for my epoch. I probably would not have been elected.

[turbid sequoia]

Fair Play

[ruby wave]

To be clear your concern is confusing people? Like they vote for 1 or they are completely lost and don’t know how to vote for multiple people?

[timber token]

I will do everything possible to make voting extremely clear

[dense girder]

I thought the concern was that someone who doesn’t know multiple candidates well enough to make an educated vote for multiple candidates might just pick multiple because they feel indifferent. I could potentially see that creating misrepresented results. I just don’t think it’s likely to happen en large.

[turbid sequoia]

If for nothing else at least I shared my concerns to get some back and forth going

I think with all the responses I've received that my concerns are v likely unfounded and at minimum do not outweigh the benefits of this proposal

[timber token]

Everyone understands your concerns. I think many just think the pros outweigh the cons

[ruby wave]

https://tenor.com/view/masterchef-stir-the-pot-gif-12615331

[timber token]

I also like to consider scale. Eventually we will have more voters. when that happens which system do we prefer?

[dense girder]

These channels exist for debate so we appreciate you vet. It’d be boring as hell if everyone agreed on everything lol.

[turbid sequoia]

yh i think ur actually right

I'll be darned if I see a proposal with no opposition and not provide a hearty attempt to tear it down #devilsadvocate

[fleet gull]

Yeah this was getting too one-sided. On the positive side it brought light to voter education so I award you 100 points

[wraith canopy]

Someone should play devils advocate.

[turbid sequoia]

Why cant we react with emoji's to messages suddenly? in this chat at least

[wraith canopy]

Hmm could be a permissions thing. Rich mentioned something like this previously

[fleet gull]

I think so

[wraith canopy]

Tholky flexing his powers

[turbid sequoia]

only mods can?
imo should be enabled because its the easiest way to show agreement without having to type a whole message

[blissful sun]

How does this decrease the power of smaller wallets?

[wraith canopy]

Permissions get wonky when things like roles get changed on the discord server. I don’t think it’s intentional and will be addressed

[turbid sequoia]

@south terrace activate

[ruby wave]

The engagement should be on the idea started, then we can discuss whatever and the ideas can change

[ruby wave]

It’s a forum issue

Eventually forums won’t scale for us either way because of discord limitations, unless they change their settings

[ruby wave]

I agree, but sometimes I just think doing so over complicates simple things personally

[turbid sequoia]

Theres nothing simple about governance, any simple change can have knock on implications that could have unforeseen negative consequences

More diverse debates with some devils advocacy is a very painless way to help weed out potential unforeseen implications

If we all think the same what would be the point of governance,

point of governance is different people see different potential issues that could exist and fire them at an idea/proposal to see if the concern is valid, that either shows us that the idea was bad or it shows us that the concern wasn't valid making the idea stronger, both are good outcomes

[ruby wave]

I’m not saying it’s wrong to have differing opinions, I just think doing so just to do so and say I’m playing devils advocate just because is more of personal thing than someone with a genuine concern. That’s why I asked what your real concern was, as you said you weren’t a conspiracy guy, and your not worried about spraying and praying votes. So I’m wondering what the real concern is so maybe we can address that

[blissful sun]

he has a misconception about what quadratic voting is - look at his original post

[ruby wave]

If it’s voter confusion, sure. In America they send out out huge packets to educate voters. I would venture to guess less than 90% actually read them (I made this number up) so like I said I don’t believe it’s as much a voter education thing as much as a disinterest in governance in general in web3

[turbid sequoia]

The responses I received from you all put to rest any concerns I had as I said https://discordapp.com/channels/760344898200666112/1101030767586447431/1101339826726387783

[upbeat quarry]

Seems like concerns revolve around education. Can't we make our marketing team create an educational video on how to vote and how to use the new system (if it gets passed). An IIP can be passed to this effect if need be.

We had one for the land sale and illuvium: Beyond. I think the importance of voting for the DAO merits an official video to educate and reach more people. Plus since it's more on editing and such it won't eat up dev time and cause delays (hopefully)

[crisp parrot]

I'll add that voter education and voter engagement are topics that arise prior to every election. Everything we've seen in the past indicates that it's not an "if you build it, they will come" type of scenario. People who care about governance read through the documentation on voting and vote. People who do not care, do not. Less people care about governance during a bear market, because less people are actively involved in crypto communities. I'm not opposed to putting together more resources to help onboard people, but I think it's important to be realistic and acknowledge that those resources will likely have a minimal impact on voter turnout, and that we should be mindful that we allocate resources effectively. Do we need additional explainers on top of what already exists in terms of official documentation and community content?

It also bears saying that voting is a less complicated process than staking. Staking is a prerequisite to voting. Voting would remain less complicated than staking, and wouldn't be appreciably more complicated than it is now with the proposed system in place.

Additionally, voter turnout is almost entirely tangential to adding an option for people to split their vILV between different candidates. The system (IMO) makes sense, or it does not. It should be robust enough to be effective whether we have high turnout, or low turnout, and turnout should probably not be a factor in whether we consider splitting votes to be a good idea.

With that said, and a mind to both the current election and future elections, does allowing split voting make sense? I believe it does. It removes some incentive to manually split vote (by transferring ILV between wallets). It also enables people who have 2 or more strong preferences to accurately indicate their preferences with their vote, regardless of their wallet size. It makes sense when we have a new, growing demographic of players who may be voting for sub-councils as well.

[fading notch]

Yes! I have been fighting for RCV in US government elections for years now.

This proposal seems to be a great compromise between user experience and democratic processes.

I fully support this proposal. 👍 I believe it will only provide a more accurate representation of who the DAO want elected.

I do hope in the future we can move towards a RCV model if snapshot is optimized or when we we are so successful we can create our own to make a better user experience.

[rough terrace]

I don't think we need educational content on how to vote. But it would be nice and I would encourage the marketing team to try and promote Gov V2 and voting as much as possible. Especially with nothing else to promote at the moment (unless we get Illuvium Zero the same week as voting).

But if this idea is voted in, in my opinion, there won't be any additional problems to anyone trying to vote as the process of voting will still be pretty easy and intuitive.

[upbeat quarry]

Id agree if there was no new system being implemented but if this becomes an IIP and passed it adds another complexity to existing voting features. Many would most likely just vote for 1 person having done so previously if they were not aware of it.

We can easily assume those who religiously follow discord to understand the concepts but even then there are still a few others who still have difficulty even with a written how-to-guide. But those who barely visit and just rely on email newsletters or twitter may be unawares of the new feature.

I always subscribe to the notion that if its important enough we need to dumb-proof it for people to acclimate and accept it.

[merry harness]

I may not have much to add to this conversation other than I agree with you point of view on this. We seem to have a lot less engagement in discord and twitter at the moment. Many people have less time to spend here as the economic realities of the likely macro decline continues. I feel it is very important that we give all of the candidates the best platform to promote themselves and to aim to get as much engagement from the community that is left here in the bear market. People want to be able to make decisions but need the process to be simple. They need to have information that is clear and concise and can be consumed in a 2 min vid or a couple info graphics. Most people don’t want to read through treads in discord to try and follow everything. I would like to see a lot of conversation happening in twitter spaces and discord with candidates in their chosen sub categories. There are a lot more candidates running this epoch and I haven’t yet seen how the interviews will be conducted.

[rough terrace]

I personally think that there should be (and will be) a "Hot to vote?" in the in the Snapshot just above where you should vote. (maybe we can push that a bit higher even)

If you have voting an a screen like this (second image) it should be pretty easy to understand how to vote and you can vote from multiple people. I think it's already dumb-proof.

I don't think we need to do anything more then that and an announcement. And "wasting" time for creating a video about voting should just be wasting time in my opinion. What we need to do is educate stakers and get their votes. But I don't think we want to have uneducated people (in terms of not knowing anything about candidates) voting. So if you aren't following and don't know any of the candidates, are you just randomly picking someone. Do we really want that?

This is totally of topic from weighted voting and should be discussed elsewhere. But just getting more people to vote is not the best option. Then it's literally a popularity contest. Do we want that or do we want the best candidates in the council?

Scruba already made a great point (#1097581124059922583 message) about how interviews are just not that helpful. There was 438 people voting (probably less because of multiple wallets) and the average view count on interviews is like 150 or less. I think we can safely assume that good amount the people didn't even read the bios of all the nominees.

We don't want another 100 or 200 people voting if they will just vote for someone who they know from discord/social media. I would say that getting 100 votes less but all of them being educated about candidates is far better then just getting votes for the hell of it.

[tepid sparrow]

Very constructive discussion! I agree with the conclusions that have been drawn and would like to summarize and conclude myself:

The proposed voting system would improve representation, but it also carries the risk of confusion especially among voters who are not deeply engaged with the community or the candidates.

Voter education and engagement are essential to address these concerns. While it's true that not all voters may engage with educational materials, providing clear, concise, and accessible information can only help. The creation of an educational video or an intuitive in-platform guide could be a good solution.

While the idea of splitting votes might be more complex than the current system, it can also offer a more nuanced representation of the community's choices.

It seems that the pros of this proposal far outweigh the cons, especially if the implementation is paired with a focus on voter education.

[rough terrace]

Don't get me wrong. I agree that voters should be educated. I just think it's far more important to educate them on nominees rather then how to vote.

[tepid sparrow]

Those two should go hand in hand. Makes sense to inform people on Nominees and how to get to know them while educating them about the voting process, and vice versa.

[merry harness]

❤️

Dam whoever took away emojis. Giant ones are so lame

[wraith canopy]

@blissful sun

RCV has been looked at a few times. But according to snapshot’s description it does not work well for votes where the intention is to have multiple winners. I think the problem lies in it being setup as an instant runoff and not as +/- points per rank.

[blissful sun]

Yea saw that. Also doesn’t look like you can do quadratic voting with it either.

Hopefully they improve that voting system soon

Council is on point here, glad they looked at all the options

[prime escarp]

This.

[ruby wave]

No you cant change the parameters

Technically they could split votes amongst all candidates

[surreal scarab]

If this passes we will need to update the gov v2 document in this section in some way. If we think this proposal could be a simple ICCP this could just be an update. I would recommend updating the whole document to v1.1 or some such with a description of the changes in the ICCP. This way someone does not have to constantly be referring back to all the ICCPs (as changes happen to this document) to get the latest version.

[rough terrace]

Is this going to be pushed to voting soon? There are already 36 upvotes.
Voting starts in a week and I guess we want this passed before then.

[ruby wave]

<@&814435151307866142>

[surreal scarab]

Possible addition to the abstract if we want to go the ICCP route of updating Gov V2 doc:

The community proposed a way to vote for multiple nominees during the council elections. Instead of what is stated in IIP-32 Appendix A(3):

The community proposed a way to vote for multiple nominees during the
council elections. Instead of what is stated in IIP-32 Appendix A(3):
“All stakers of $ILV will be eligible to vote. Each $ILV staker will
have the option to cast a single vote for one nominee for each
sub-council. $ILV stakers will be eligible to cast a single vote in
each of the following categories.

• Game Council member

• Community Council Member

• Marketing Council Member

• Strategy Council Member

In total, each $ILV staker will be eligible to cast up to 4 votes.

All stakers of $ILV will be eligible to vote. Each $ILV staker can spread their voting power across any number of choices, inside each category. Their voting power will be divided between their chosen options according to how much weight they attribute to each option by increasing or decreasing the voting power fraction. $ILV stakers will be eligible to cast votes in each of the following categories.

• Game Council member

• Community Council Member

• Marketing Council Member

• Strategy Council Member

[merry harness]

I am definitely for this idea. Thanks for pushing it forward

[timber token]

I'm down if the other council members are ready

[prime escarp]

Any new news on this?

[rough terrace]

It's currently in voting. #📯〕council-chambers

[prime escarp]

Thanks Binet! I see we have one yes and one no.