atom feed16 messages in org.gnome.foundation-listRe: time to (re)consider preferential...
FromSent OnAttachments
Luis VillaFeb 16, 2008 7:53 am 
Dave NearyFeb 16, 2008 8:19 am 
Jonathon JongsmaFeb 16, 2008 8:35 am 
Quim GilFeb 16, 2008 11:20 am 
Shaun McCanceFeb 16, 2008 3:47 pm 
Luis VillaFeb 17, 2008 5:32 am 
Quim GilFeb 17, 2008 11:36 am 
James HenstridgeFeb 23, 2008 5:32 pm 
Elijah NewrenFeb 23, 2008 8:10 pm 
Telsa GwynneFeb 24, 2008 12:41 am 
Shaun McCanceFeb 24, 2008 9:44 am 
James HenstridgeFeb 24, 2008 7:14 pm 
James HenstridgeFeb 25, 2008 5:08 am 
Behdad EsfahbodFeb 25, 2008 10:47 am 
Vincent UntzFeb 27, 2008 3:44 am 
Bruno BoaventuraFeb 27, 2008 2:23 pm 
Subject:Re: time to (re)consider preferential voting?
From:Luis Villa (lu@tieguy.org)
Date:Feb 17, 2008 5:32:57 am
List:org.gnome.foundation-list

On Feb 16, 2008 6:47 PM, Shaun McCance <sha@gnome.org> wrote:

For the board elections, we are electing seven people, and we each get to cast up to seven votes. I don't think we've ever seen the list of candidates unfairly cut due to non-preferential voting.

Well, of course we haven't seen that list, since it can't exist without having asked people to rank the candidates :)

And I'm sure I've never made a strategic vote for one person instead of another I like more, simply to block another person.

Any preferential voting systems is going to make the voting process more difficult. If I had had to order my votes in previous elections, I'm sure it would have been mostly arbitrary. If it's not solving any real problems, why bother?

I don't think there is a huge problem here that needs to be solved, but my instinct is that it would have made at least a small difference in past elections. In particular, the creative commons election exposed a situation where one candidate got a lot of first and *last* place votes, and as a result did not make the board, and I have a sense that something similar might have happened with us in past elections had we practiced preferential voting.

Luis