The current leaders, going into the final stretchā¦ are the EA Animal Welfare Fund, The Shrimp Welfare Project, and Rethink Priorities.
The Against Malaria Foundation, Pause AI US, Wild Animal Initiative and MATS are runners up, with AMF being particularly close to getting into the top three.
You can expand the leaderboard at any time to see the runners up.
Now is the time to make the case for the runners up you think should be more highly rankedā¦
This isnāt an institutional take from CEA, but Iām personally a bit surprised that the Arthropoda Foundation isnāt up there, since the Shrimp Welfare Project is. They seem to appeal to the same worldview to me. If you put SWP near the top of your list, but didnāt vote for Arthropoda, why is that?
I donāt think that is surprising where only oneās first-place vote among non-eliminated orgs counts. The screenshots below suggest that when Arthropoda is eliminated, about half of its votes go to SWP, with most of the rest going to WAI and RP. From public information, we donāt know where SWP votes would go if it were eliminated, but itās plausible that many would go to Arthropoda if it were still in the race.
Moreover, at the time of Arthropodaās elimination, it was behind SWP 46-31, so while thereās evidence of a clear rank ordering preference among the electorate I would not call it overwhelming.
Thanks Jason! Iām guessing a fairly large part of this is name recognition, so maybe there arenāt unwritten takes to extract here.
This also makes me think we can make the UI clearer next year- itād have been easier to see this effect if I could also click a button to āeliminate one candidateā.
We did have some more fancy schemes where chunks of votes would be visually redistributed, but it would have taken too long.
One observation is that RP has a strategic advantage here as a cross-cause org where voters may be unsure which cause area the marginal funding will benefit. This makes it a potentially attractive second-choice option when the top votegetter in a cause area is eliminated. Compare, for instance, its current significant lead in the top-3 with the top-5 results (with AMF and PauseAI present as the last orgs standing in global health and x-risk).
Rules are rules and should be followed, but I think the top-5 better represents the will of the electorate than the top-3. (There are also a non-trivial number of voters who did not indicate a preference in the top-3 but who did in the top-5 or at least top-8.)
The current leaders, going into the final stretchā¦ are the EA Animal Welfare Fund, The Shrimp Welfare Project, and Rethink Priorities.
The Against Malaria Foundation, Pause AI US, Wild Animal Initiative and MATS are runners up, with AMF being particularly close to getting into the top three.
You can expand the leaderboard at any time to see the runners up.
Now is the time to make the case for the runners up you think should be more highly rankedā¦
This isnāt an institutional take from CEA, but Iām personally a bit surprised that the Arthropoda Foundation isnāt up there, since the Shrimp Welfare Project is. They seem to appeal to the same worldview to me. If you put SWP near the top of your list, but didnāt vote for Arthropoda, why is that?
I donāt think that is surprising where only oneās first-place vote among non-eliminated orgs counts. The screenshots below suggest that when Arthropoda is eliminated, about half of its votes go to SWP, with most of the rest going to WAI and RP. From public information, we donāt know where SWP votes would go if it were eliminated, but itās plausible that many would go to Arthropoda if it were still in the race.
Moreover, at the time of Arthropodaās elimination, it was behind SWP 46-31, so while thereās evidence of a clear rank ordering preference among the electorate I would not call it overwhelming.
Thanks Jason! Iām guessing a fairly large part of this is name recognition, so maybe there arenāt unwritten takes to extract here.
This also makes me think we can make the UI clearer next year- itād have been easier to see this effect if I could also click a button to āeliminate one candidateā.
We did have some more fancy schemes where chunks of votes would be visually redistributed, but it would have taken too long.
Time for the strategic voting to begin!
One observation is that RP has a strategic advantage here as a cross-cause org where voters may be unsure which cause area the marginal funding will benefit. This makes it a potentially attractive second-choice option when the top votegetter in a cause area is eliminated. Compare, for instance, its current significant lead in the top-3 with the top-5 results (with AMF and PauseAI present as the last orgs standing in global health and x-risk).
Rules are rules and should be followed, but I think the top-5 better represents the will of the electorate than the top-3. (There are also a non-trivial number of voters who did not indicate a preference in the top-3 but who did in the top-5 or at least top-8.)