# 2020 Election Results: Congratulations to our new moderator!

The 2020 elections are over. By analyzing the OpaSTV file with the voting data, I'd like to welcome to the moderators' team the winner of the 2020 moderator elections, who is:

In the name of all the users on Mathematics SE, congratulations on your victory!

• That was quick! Congratulations @XanderHenderson :) It is well-deserved! – user279515 Aug 4 at 20:01
• Congratulations, @Xander!! You lived up to your name, @Asaf!! I knew you would! – amWhy Aug 4 at 20:01
• Congrats Xander. You were second option for me!! – Paramanand Singh Aug 4 at 20:02
• That cannot get any closer! – Arctic Char Aug 4 at 20:14
• The downvotes on this thread are inexplicable. This is the time to cheer up for everyone irrespective of who won the elections. – Paramanand Singh Aug 4 at 20:39
• I completely agree with you, @ParamanandSingh, about the downvotes, and being a time to cheer up. You were a formidable candidate, and one we would all be proud to have a mod. Next time, I hope? You've been the consummate gentleman. – amWhy Aug 4 at 20:42
• Congrats also to @ParamanandSingh for his great run this time. I hope to see you more here in meta. – Arctic Char Aug 4 at 20:45
• @ArcticChar: definitely! My original intention remains firm: reduce tensions in meta discussions. – Paramanand Singh Aug 4 at 20:48
• @amWhy: yes there is always a next time! – Paramanand Singh Aug 4 at 20:48
• @ArcticChar: It could get closer: opavote.com/results/1480009/0 – T. S Aug 4 at 22:11
• I disagree; in the 2013 election, during round 3, there were 5 candidates who were close to the voting threshold, of which $4$ were elected, a $80 \%$ selection rate. In this year's election, only $1$ candidate was selected out of $2$, which is only a $50 \%$ selection rate. – Toby Mak Aug 5 at 1:40
• @Toby: What do you mean exactly? If you have any actual criticism of the process, I urge you to make a meta thread about it. – Asaf Karagila Aug 5 at 7:32
• @ArcticChar: Yes, perhaps. But it's very unclear to me what the problem. It's not that one candidate received nearly half the votes and lost. It's both candidates that received about the same amount of the votes, and the one who got the edge won. Isn't that how elections work? I don't know, I don't have voting rights here. – Asaf Karagila Aug 5 at 7:54
• @TobyMak I can understand your sentiments, but I think the system is fair, and the winner is fair : unfortunately, the only result is "you are elected" or "you are not", which means he who comes second by the slightest margin loses, but takes great heart and will be a favourite next time. We can debate on this, along with Asaf above who also thinks it is fair. – Teresa Lisbon Aug 5 at 15:50
• @TobyMak regarding representation, it might be relevant to note that certainly there are a large number of ballots (I did not check how many exactly though) that had both P. and X. on it. Thus, for a relevant proportion of voters the outcome will be that while they did not get their first choice, they still got their second or third choice. I think comparisons to other elections especially later round results are tricky since the system compresses the difference, e.g., in 2014 Daniel was way ahead of everyone but in the final rounds it looks close (because his votes got dumped). – quid Aug 5 at 16:51

Well... this is a surprise. I am humbled and honored. Many thanks to the community—I shall endeavor to do my job well. Also profound thanks to the to the current set of moderators, who made this election far more clear and far less acrimonious than the last one. I look forward to working with y'all in a different capacity.

• Just a minor correction, there was no election last year. Previous election was two years ago (minus 10 days). – Asaf Karagila Aug 4 at 20:23
• Seems like it was less time than that. :P – Xander Henderson Aug 4 at 20:25
• It will seem longer until the next one for you ;) – Daniel Fischer Aug 4 at 20:25
• Also it's no surprise, you deserve it man! – Paramanand Singh Aug 4 at 20:26
• Congrats to Xander for the bigger broom, and to Paramanand for a very good campaign. I was delighted to see my #1 and #2 picks in the final round. I actually swapped your positions on my ballot a few times, because I couldn't make up my mind :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 4 at 20:31
• @JyrkiLahtonen : thanks a lot! I was not aware one could swap positions on ballot (not that I had any intention to do so). – Paramanand Singh Aug 4 at 20:37
• It's unusual to accept an answer, but since there's only one candidate, I figured... – Asaf Karagila Aug 4 at 23:21
• @XanderHenderson Congratulations, looking forward to your contribution to the site. – Teresa Lisbon Aug 5 at 5:51
• I wish you all the best with all my heart. I hope that your new assignment will be carried out with sincerity, honesty, moderation, loyalty and a lot of heart. I always wish you the best here and in the life. – Sebastiano Aug 6 at 10:50
• These downvotes are weird. – Brian Tung Aug 6 at 21:15

I was confused by the three links in the main post to see the result.

You can click this link to see the result. Below is the report in plain text, which can be also found here.

The candidates are elected using OpenSTV (now OpaVote) with the Meek STV method. See also: How are moderator election votes counted, in plain English?

OpaVote Election Results (https://www.OpaVote.com/)

Mathematics Stack Exchange Moderator Election 2020

There are 6 candidates competing for 1 seats. The number of voters is 2368 and

Method Options:
Precision -- 6
Threshold Formula -- Droop
Dynamic Threshold -- Dynamic
Fractional Threshold -- Fractional
Weak Tie Breaking -- Backward

R|Paramanand Sin|heropup       |Matt Samuel   |Brahadeesh    |Xander Henders
|gh            |              |              |              |on
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TheSimpliFire |Exhausted     |Surplus       |Threshold
|              |              |              |
=============================================================================
1|    597.000000|    191.000000|    442.000000|    212.000000|    578.000000
|    348.000000|      0.000000|      0.000000|   1184.000001
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Count of first choices.
=============================================================================
2|    646.000000|              |    487.000000|    227.000000|    615.000000
|    373.000000|     20.000000|      0.000000|   1174.000001
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Count after eliminating heropup and transferring votes. All losing
| candidates are eliminated.
=============================================================================
3|    722.000000|              |    531.000000|              |    666.000000
|    411.000000|     38.000000|      0.000000|   1165.000001
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| candidates are eliminated.
=============================================================================
4|    826.000000|              |    585.000000|              |    857.000000
|              |    100.000000|      0.000000|   1134.000001
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Count after eliminating TheSimpliFire and transferring votes. All losing
| candidates are eliminated.
=============================================================================
5|   1033.000000|              |              |              |   1046.000000
|              |    289.000000|      6.499999|   1039.500001
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Count after eliminating Matt Samuel and transferring votes. All losing
| candidates are eliminated. Candidate Xander Henderson has reached the
| threshold and is elected.

Winner is Xander Henderson.


In case you are interested in the election results in history:

2018 Community Moderator Election Results

2017 Election Results: Congratulations to the new moderators!

2013 Election Results: Congratulations to the new moderators!

Here is a complete list of the site moderators: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/19106

• The post above presents in a different way information explicitly or implicitly provided in the main post and elsewhere on the site. One can have opposing views whether or not this is useful, the downside of having the post is however rather limited (it does not seem to provide anything that is wrong, controversial in itself, and even the risk of it causing confusion is low). Everybody that finds the post not useful is of course free to vote it down. Those that find it useful can vote it up. – quid Aug 5 at 16:01
• So this purports to be a math site, and the data above has a stray 0.000001 votes floating about? Yeah, right. Not much of an advertisement for the supposed high quality of SE sites, IMO. – alephzero Aug 10 at 14:15
• @alephzero: That's in the "threshold" entry. No one votes for "threshold". You must have at least "threshold" votes to win. For an election with, say, 16 votes, I guess the threshold is be set at 8.000001, requiring a strict majority for one candidate to be the winner. In the ranked-choice voting, presumably there are further complications (in choosing the amount by which to adjust the mean to get the threshold) that I can't infer from this output). This may not be how you would have chosen to model things, but that doesn't make it wrong, and there are not $0.000001$ "stray votes" anywhere. – John Hughes Aug 22 at 11:43