|
increpatio
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: 10:02:52, 22-10-2007 » |
|
"In terms of not having all-male candidates, would Mort be prepared to stand?"
After some pondering, I`m throwing my bonnet into the ring.
Excellent! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #91 on: 10:05:16, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Apologies if I've missed something here, but why this sort of poll ? It could prevent the most popular candidate(s) from winning.
It doesn't need explaining why.
Does it ?
Sorry if I'm being slow, Auto, it's Monday morning and I'm not feeling very well, but yes it does. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #92 on: 10:09:33, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Richard -
Hypothetically - I want X as moderator (one of). I vote in round 1 - no joy. I vote AGAIN in round 2... possibly etc - wasted vote.
So - tactical voting - in round 1 I vote not for my first choice but the one of the three I think is most likely to succeed...
Far better to make my choice of three all in one go.
I think that's what Auto was getting at - correct me if I'm wrong - if not, that's MY gripe about this system.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #93 on: 10:35:55, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Richard -
Hypothetically - I want X as moderator (one of). I vote in round 1 - no joy. I vote AGAIN in round 2... possibly etc - wasted vote.
So - tactical voting - in round 1 I vote not for my first choice but the one of the three I think is most likely to succeed... However there's no voting system in this situation where strategic voting won't be a possibility. (I had a good friend who studied voting theory for some time). I think that's what Auto was getting at - correct me if I'm wrong - if not, that's MY gripe about this system.
The reason for this voting system though assumes some unity of thought, that people will try to pick what they think constitutes a balanced team of moderators. So say A (well, not A, a hypothetical 'A') gets elected, then people will say "Oh gosh, B is really a lot like A, probably best to vote for someone else who will contrast a bit with them, say C". But yeah, A had a majority faction, then both A and B could get in on each vote, and mods with large but non-minority support won't get a look in; I think the American term is "the tyranny of the majority". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #94 on: 10:45:29, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Apologies if I've missed something here, but why this sort of poll ? It could prevent the most popular candidate(s) from winning.
It doesn't need explaining why.
Does it ?
Sorry if I'm being slow, Auto, it's Monday morning and I'm not feeling very well, but yes it does. Unlikely + utterly hypothetical, but here goes. There are 4 candidates - A, B, C + D - competing for 3 positions. 70 % of the electorate strongly favour A, B + C, bit disapprove of D. The other 30% strongly support D. First poll: vote for one candidate only. D gets 30% of the vote. A, B + C get 23.333% each. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Il Grande Inquisitor
|
|
« Reply #95 on: 10:49:56, 22-10-2007 » |
|
That's my concern too, autoharp, and is why I intend to watch the poll closely and vote tactically if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #96 on: 10:53:14, 22-10-2007 » |
|
That's my concern too, autoharp, and is why I intend to watch the poll closely and vote tactically if necessary.
Is this going to end up with some sort of auction system whereby everyone leaves their vote 'til the last minute? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #97 on: 11:36:58, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Unlikely + utterly hypothetical, but here goes.
Yes, I see that now, sorry again for having the brain in low gear. It could be said, though, that 30% supporting D is a minority large enough to deserve an influence. So that in the next round, with D out of the picture, the balance is redressed. This would mean, in the end, that of the three moderators, two-thirds would be non-D, which would reflect more or less the divisions in the electorate itself in your hypothetical case. Isn't that actually a good result? I think that means I agree with Increpatio. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #98 on: 11:48:26, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Unlikely + utterly hypothetical, but here goes.
Yes, I see that now, sorry again for having the brain in low gear. It could be said, though, that 30% supporting D is a minority large enough to deserve an influence. So that in the next round, with D out of the picture, the balance is redressed. This would mean, in the end, that of the three moderators, two-thirds would be non-D, which would reflect more or less the divisions in the electorate itself in your hypothetical case. Isn't that actually a good result? I think that means I agree with Increpatio. Well I agree with you based on what you've said. But I don't think I've said it myself before, if that's what you were implying. (I'm also in low gear at the moment, I think). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #99 on: 11:49:44, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Quote from Richard - message 97. "Isn't that actually a good result?" Er . . no! Because 70 % of the electorate strongly favour A, B + C
This kind of poll is asking for trouble. The idea of having to "tactically" vote for moderators is sheer idiocy. The idea of leaving the poll open to manipulation is sheer lunacy. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:52:36, 22-10-2007 by autoharp »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #100 on: 11:55:07, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Quote from Richard - message 97. "Isn't that actually a good result?" Er . . no! Because 70 % of the electorate strongly favour A, B + C
This kind of poll is asking for trouble. The idea of having to "tactically" vote for moderators is sheer idiocy. It's mathematically unavoidable, however. " any voting method which is completely strategy-free must be either dictatorial or nondeterministic". Basic theory! I don't understand your point fully however. Could you say something more about what you mean? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #101 on: 12:02:58, 22-10-2007 » |
|
Quote from Richard - message 97. "Isn't that actually a good result?" Er . . no! Because 70 % of the electorate strongly favour A, B + C
This kind of poll is asking for trouble. The idea of having to "tactically" vote for moderators is sheer idiocy. It's mathematically unavoidable, however. " any voting method which is completely strategy-free must be either dictatorial or nondeterministic". Basic theory! I don't understand your point fully however. Could you say something more about what you mean? I'm not trying to be rude - but no. My point about this poll is clear enough. I can't be bothered to get into a discussion about voting theory. But by all means criticise my point of view if you want to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #102 on: 12:04:20, 22-10-2007 » |
|
It could be said, though, that 30% supporting D is a minority large enough to deserve an influence. So that in the next round, with D out of the picture, the balance is redressed. This would mean, in the end, that of the three moderators, two-thirds would be non-D, which would reflect more or less the divisions in the electorate itself in your hypothetical case. Isn't that actually a good result?
That rather relies, though, on no other new candidates appearing for Round 2 (whereas the arrangement currently proposed allows for this)? FWIW, and for the reasons that people have expressed, I'm personally in favour of a single round of voting for three moderators. To get the best representative spread of people's wishes this, ideally, would be by proportional representation if the technology allows it (with each voter being able to indicate their choices in order of preference). If not, then by each voter having three votes (with no voter being allowed to cast more than one vote per candidate). I have only just noticed by the way (or 'had it drawn to my attention' as terribly important people say when writing to the newspapers) that Ian P had sort of suggested way back that I should be a candidate. Thank you kindly, Ian, but I hadn't thought of nominating myself and am anyway more than happy to choose from among the admirable field of thoroughbreds that are even now jostling amiably at the starting gates, the steam snorting picturesquely from their nostrils in the crisp autumnal air. Since I haven't contributed to this thread before (at least I don't think I have: the ground keeps moving) just to say that I also agree that having a ballot of members in this way provides a helpful opportunity for us to get R3OK back on track - and that's a prize worth having - so thank you Michael for proposing it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:18:48, 22-10-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #103 on: 12:29:32, 22-10-2007 » |
|
the steam snorting picturesquely from their nostrils in the crisp autumnal air. Or, in this case, something rather more virus-induced issuing rather distastefully from their nostrils in a centrally-heated cocoon. I don't know. I can see both (or however many there are) sides of the argument as far as the voting system is concerned. I think my favoured solution would involve the PR system as George describes it, but somehow I doubt that the technology does allow for it. I suppose in the end I'm just relieved that the previous unhappy situation is being addressed in a way which stands a good chance of putting things back on track. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michael
|
|
« Reply #104 on: 12:32:58, 22-10-2007 » |
|
How about a closed ballot?
I can open a fresh account named 'R3OK polls' and you can PM your vote to it. That way you cannot see the way that votes are going, and all things are fair and above board. This would of course mean me knowing who voted for whom.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
