Per Jessen <per@computer.org> wrote:
Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Christian Boltz <cb@cboltz.de> wrote:
Hello,
Am Montag, 17. Dezember 2012 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
Bryen, I'm curious what the vote totals were. Not so much which candidate got what, but how the votes were spread out.
ie. Total votes: nnn cast Candidate #1: x votes #2: y votes etc.
The election results are public on connect:
https://connect.opensuse.org/pg/polls/read/digitaltomm/42100/opensuse-board-...
Thanks,
That does indeed show my concern. The two winners only had 36% and 31% of the voters vote for them. I assume that's because such a big selection of truly good candidates.
Or lack of genuine distinction between them.
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel bothered by this?
Part of it I'm sure is cultural. I've spent my entire voting life in a state that requires 50% to win an election. The other part is the "lack of distinction" issue you bring up. It can cause an un-popular candidate to win. Assume in this case one of the candidates had a controversial platform that 32% of the members supported, but the other 7 candidates shared a non-distinct platform. Further assume that the other 68% of members truly disliked the controversial platform. With the current method, votes from 32% of the members would have won a seat on the board for the person with a controversial platform. With a STV method and assuming the 68% spread their votes across the other 7 candidates, the end result would be 2 of the candidates with non-distinct platforms would win. In the USA, the solution to the above was to form parties based around the candidates platforms, then have each party have a preliminary vote to elect the "one" candidate to run to represent the platform. Then here in georgia, we have run-offs at both the preliminary and final election. Thus it can take 4 visits to the polling place to fully participate in a single election. We clearly don't want to follow that model. I had not heard of the STV method a week ago, so I don't know where it comes from, but it seems like a simple and elegant solution to my concern, and it keeps the effort required of the voter to a minimum. Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org