|Luis Villa||Feb 16, 2008 7:53 am|
|Dave Neary||Feb 16, 2008 8:19 am|
|Jonathon Jongsma||Feb 16, 2008 8:35 am|
|Quim Gil||Feb 16, 2008 11:20 am|
|Shaun McCance||Feb 16, 2008 3:47 pm|
|Luis Villa||Feb 17, 2008 5:32 am|
|Quim Gil||Feb 17, 2008 11:36 am|
|James Henstridge||Feb 23, 2008 5:32 pm|
|Elijah Newren||Feb 23, 2008 8:10 pm|
|Telsa Gwynne||Feb 24, 2008 12:41 am|
|Shaun McCance||Feb 24, 2008 9:44 am|
|James Henstridge||Feb 24, 2008 7:14 pm|
|James Henstridge||Feb 25, 2008 5:08 am|
|Behdad Esfahbod||Feb 25, 2008 10:47 am|
|Vincent Untz||Feb 27, 2008 3:44 am|
|Bruno Boaventura||Feb 27, 2008 2:23 pm|
|Subject:||Re: time to (re)consider preferential voting?|
|From:||Elijah Newren (new...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Feb 23, 2008 8:10:00 pm|
At the risk of sounding like a bad person...
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 6:33 PM, James Henstridge <jam...@jamesh.id.au> wrote:
I think the same arguments about not locking out candidates stand when you generalise single seat instant run-off to multiple seat single transferable vote: if the candidate you prefer is unpopular and gets eliminated at the start, this does not penalise you for choosing them. <snip> This gives you another benefit over our current system: you aren't penalised for picking a popular candidate.
I was thinking of speaking up earlier, but was a bit worried about it. Since James seemed to nail it on the head so well, though, I thought my experience might be enlightening. (By the way, both of these features James points out would be really nice...)
You may never have made a strategic vote with our current system, but it is definitely possible.
I doubt many who have done so will speak up. I mean...it just doesn't look right. At the risk of hitting that problem though, let me state that I have been one person to do so and I suspect there are many more.
In particular, I've seen time after time where someone decides to run but doesn't do very well their first year, despite the fact that I think they'd be great. (And in several cases, does do increasingly better in later years if they try again.) For some, it discourages them from trying again. The problem seems to mostly be with the fact that while these people are very positive contributors and are well regarded among those that know them, they're only known within a small subset of the wider GNOME community. It seems that those who work on the bugsquad, the release team, or other "visibile-in-the-community" positions have better odds of making it. I'll take clarkbw's and J5's first run as an example; I thought both would be great candidates, but neither got elected. clarkbw didn't try again; J5 did (after being on the release team for a bit over a year...did that help?) and got on the board.
Trying to counteract this factor, I've often voted for such people that I thought would be great and would be unknown in the wider community, and omitted voting for people I liked that I knew would make it on the board anyway (often making sure to select fewer people than the maximum I was allowed). I was hoping it would even out the number of votes a little bit, and make those who didn't get elected feel more encouraged to try again.
My hat is off to those who have run for the foundation board and to those who have served and are serving on it. I considered running a couple times, but I really think it'd be too rough for me. I'm glad others have stepped up where I stepped away.
Anyway, a long winded way of saying I'd like to try out preferential voting.