Reform of Alumnus of Month Voting System?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

There are too many potential candidates and too many noteworthy posters for us to only have one vote.

So I'd like to suggest again that one have the right to vote for at most three persons, so long as they aren't oneselve or whoever we nominated.

This will make voting easier, since we won't have to wait until all ten candidates are nominated and we won't have to flip a coin or log in with different user-names when there are many posters of merit.

So what say ye?

[Jaltus]

Ask WUC if it is possible.

[$cirisme]

Of course it's possible.

we won't have to wait until all ten candidates are nominated
Personally I think it's better if you do wait, so that you haven't wasted your vote on someone merely because they're first and you couldn't wait for someone you really want. Personally, I have contemplated banning voting altogether until there are ten nominees. That would prevent the above and probably speed up the nomination process.

As far as the three votes goes... yes it is easier to choose this way but what if there aren't three people I want to vote for? That would lessen my vote rather than strengthen it, because I would either not get the same say as other people who have three people they want to vote for, or I would vote for someone I really didn't want.

[$cirisme]

And before Socrates posts... I have contemplated both his suggestion(preferential voting) and this one. Socrates' suggestion has the same basic problems, as this, imnsho.

[$cirisme]

And hmmm... people vote more than once by using multiple screennames?

Not only is that dishonest, that is against the TW decorum. Guess I will have to start monitoring IPs with votes.

[Jaltus]

Has that happened?

[$cirisme]

Has that happened?
It won't in the future.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Well, if one doesn't vote 3 times, that will give the one who we actually do vote for more of an edge.

And so I don't think it will be terribly unfair.

dlw

[$cirisme]

Well, if one doesn't vote 3 times, that will give the one who we actually do vote for more of an edge.

And so I don't think it will be terribly unfair.

dlw
You missed what I was saying.

Say there are 5 nominees.

You like nominees 2, 3, and 5 and vote for those.

The only candidate I like is #4... so I vote for him. You have an unfair advantage because you had 3 candidates you liked and I only had one... thus your votes had a greater effect on the alumnus than my vote did.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

You missed what I was saying.

Say there are 5 nominees.

You like nominees 2, 3, and 5 and vote for those.

The only candidate I like is #4... so I vote for him. You have an unfair advantage because you had 3 candidates you liked and I only had one... thus your votes had a greater effect on the alumnus than my vote did.

So the person who likes 3 as opposed to 1 has a higher chance of being a tie-breaker. Sure. But if two of the three chosen were tied in the lead before-hand then the person's vote will not decide who wins, whereas if (s)he chose only one then their vote would be the decisive tie-breaker.

If a person can only find one out of the ten that are nominated that (s)he thinks is worthy of winning then (s)he doesn't read enough posts. There are by far too many excellent posters that get nominated for Alumnus of the month for anyone who cares enough to vote to find only one who was worthy and if they decide to vote for less than two for strategic reasons that is their own prerogative.

dlw

[Em7add11]

Maybe we could set up an electoral college. :hrm:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Which ones of us would belong to the state of confusion or misery?

dlw

[Em7add11]

Which ones of us would belong to the state of confusion or misery?

dlw
:nc:



:hehe:

[$cirisme]

So the person who likes 3 as opposed to 1 has a higher chance of being a tie-breaker. Sure. But if two of the three chosen were tied in the lead before-hand then the person's vote will not decide who wins, whereas if (s)he chose only one then their vote would be the decisive tie-breaker.
Ties aren't really a concern to me.

If a person can only find one out of the ten that are nominated that (s)he thinks is worthy of winning then (s)he doesn't read enough posts.
I disagree. There have been a few months were I felt strongly that a paticular person should win, and I had no strong feelings for anyone else.

In the OP you argued that this would make choosing who to vote for easier because you could vote for each person rather than having to choose. This is problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, there have been times when I wanted to vote for more than three, so choosing three doesn't really help. There have also been times when I strongly felt someone should win and really didn't care about the others.(iow, if my candidate doesn't win I don't care who wins) In that case you have the same problem, but really in reverse. You vote for the candidate you want, and then you have 9 others you have to choose among and you really don't care which one wins of those 9. You could throw your vote away on the two you think have the worst shot, yes... but no one should have to make that decision, especially since you would be essentially forced to endorse two people who you felt aren't worthy.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Ties aren't really a concern to me.

As I understood it, one's potential to break ties and cast the decisive vote is the objective way to measure influence.

I disagree. There have been a few months were I felt strongly that a paticular person should win, and I had no strong feelings for anyone else.

Then, you could vote for that person, but if others did not share those feelings they could vote for that person too and others...But how would others voting for more than one person disvalue your vote for one person?

In the OP you argued that this would make choosing who to vote for easier because you could vote for each person rather than having to choose. This is problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, there have been times when I wanted to vote for more than three, so choosing three doesn't really help.

It helps some. Presumably if there were four you wanted to vote for you'd rather be able to vote for three out of four and then you could vote for the other person in the next month.

There have also been times when I strongly felt someone should win and really didn't care about the others.(iow, if my candidate doesn't win I don't care who wins) In that case you have the same problem, but really in reverse. You vote for the candidate you want, and then you have 9 others you have to choose among and you really don't care which one wins of those 9. You could throw your vote away on the two you think have the worst shot, yes... but no one should have to make that decision, especially since you would be essentially forced to endorse two people who you felt aren't worthy.

No one is forcing anyone to vote at all, much less vote for exactly three people. If you only think one should win then only vote for that person.

The question is, under most circumstances, would being able to vote for at most three candidates be preferred to being able to vote for only one. I'd think most would prefer being able to vote for three candidates, given that there are ten nominees and so many excellent posters here at TWeb.

dlw

[$cirisme]

As I understood it, one's potential to break ties and cast the decisive vote is the objective way to measure influence.
Influence maybe, fairness certainly not.

And can it really be considered influence when everyone else has the same power? :huh:

Then, you could vote for that person, but if others did not share those feelings they could vote for that person too and others...But how would others voting for more than one person disvalue your vote for one person?
Because they would get 3 times the say. The only possible way this could be "remedied" would be by upping my candidate three votes for my one, but that is problematic also.

It helps some.
But with what the caveats I've noted. Those caveats are too important to simply set aside.

No one is forcing anyone to vote at all, much less vote for exactly three people. If you only think one should win then only vote for that person.
What that is tantamount to saying is... "It's unfair, if you don't like it don't vote."

Someone who chooses to vote for 3 people... for whatever reason... has more say in that election because he has upped 3 people's votes to my one.

The question is, under most circumstances, would being able to vote for at most three candidates be preferred to being able to vote for only one. I'd think most would prefer being able to vote for three candidates, given that there are ten nominees and so many excellent posters here at TWeb.
No, the question is what is most fair under the most circumstances. Unless you can find a system that is fairer than the current in more situations than the current it will stand unchanged.

[Socrates]

And before Socrates posts... I have contemplated both his suggestion(preferential voting) and this one. Socrates' suggestion has the same basic problems, as this, imnsho.
What are these? In Queensland there is optional preferential voting. So people can list all their preferences, or "just vote 1". This means that people who vote for a bottom candidate X have the option, not the compulsion, to answer the question: "X has no chance of winning, so who would you like instead?" If Cir feels strongly about only one candidate, he would not have to list second or other preferences.

I disagree with limiting the possible preferences to only three as DLW suggests. I agree with suspending voting until all candidates have been nominated. They should also not publish the tallies until the election is over, because earlier have an undue influence over the later ones.

There are no redeeming features of the plurality system with three or more candidates. It just doesn't reflect the will of the people. It asks only, "Who is your most preferred candidate?" whereas it should ask, "What do you think of all candidates?" There are far too many anomalies, mainly with "spoilers", allowing a candidate unpreferred by the majority to be elected because the opposition vote is split (cf. Bush Sr. + Perot v Clinton, Gore + Nader v GWBush). Under the optional preferential system, the winner will be preferred by the majority over any of the other candidates.

[dizzle]

That would never work in Florida where confusion reigned over which circle to filll in. Buchanen or Gore, Buchanen or Gore.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Influence maybe, fairness certainly not.

And can it really be considered influence when everyone else has the same power? :huh:

I was just trying to point out that objectively, its not how many votes one makes but one's ability to influence the final outcome that matters and that, while voting once may reduce one's influence in a way, it increases it in another way.

Because they would get 3 times the say. The only possible way this could be "remedied" would be by upping my candidate three votes for my one, but that is problematic also.

But the person chooses that there is only one candidate worth voting for. Unless they are always in this position then their relative influence would vary from month to month. I.e., this next month you think only one person is worth voting for and I vote for three, but the following month you have three people to vote for and I only one.

But with what the caveats I've noted. Those caveats are too important to simply set aside.

Those caveats exist with the current system. If anything having three votes should reduce them. People will be able to express their appreciation for more nominees and the final outcome will be less dependent on the outcome of much coin-tossing.

What that is tantamount to saying is... "It's unfair, if you don't like it don't vote."

Someone who chooses to vote for 3 people... for whatever reason... has more say in that election because he has upped 3 people's votes to my one.


Not really. You chose to vote for only one person. If you believe in your heart only one person should win and the rest are just taking up space on the board in comparison to that one person then you would just have to accept that you'd get less votes. Besides, if that person was really that good then they would tend to win, regardless of the voting system. But when people value lots of candidates, having more votes makes the final tally better reflect how widely a candidate is appreciated by the community.

No, the question is what is most fair under the most circumstances. Unless you can find a system that is fairer than the current in more situations than the current it will stand unchanged.

Well, that would then depend on what is in fact more often the case. I contend that for most people at TWeb, they appreciate a number of the candidates, often for quite diverse reasons and so being able to vote for only one requires the use of coins, dice, whatever. Now, it may all come around eventually as people get nominated again and again for alumnus of the month, but I doubt too many feel only one person should be elected and could care less if anyone else wins.

If anything some have felt that one person should absolutely not be elected and allowed that to determine their strategic voting.

The alumnus of the month is s'posed to reward good posters and let the people make such a determination. With more votes, the people will have more freedom to ensure that the final tallies truly reflect the extent the nominees are valued.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

What are these? In Queensland there is optional preferential voting. So people can list all their preferences, or "just vote 1". This means that people who vote for a bottom candidate X have the option, not the compulsion, to answer the question: "X has no chance of winning, so who would you like instead?" If Cir feels strongly about only one candidate, he would not have to list second or other preferences.

I disagree with limiting the possible preferences to only three as DLW suggests. I agree with suspending voting until all candidates have been nominated. They should also not publish the tallies until the election is over, because earlier have an undue influence over the later ones.

There are no redeeming features of the plurality system with three or more candidates. It just doesn't reflect the will of the people. It asks only, "Who is your most preferred candidate?" whereas it should ask, "What do you think of all candidates?" There are far too many anomalies, mainly with "spoilers", allowing a candidate unpreferred by the majority to be elected because the opposition vote is split (cf. Bush Sr. + Perot v Clinton, Gore + Nader v GWBush). Under the optional preferential system, the winner will be preferred by the majority over any of the other candidates.

I don't like the ranking system because I think voting shouldn't be too full of rivalry. Rank me number one, me number two or so on would abstract from the fact that people can value different posters for different reasons and they need not say what reason is more important than the other.

Having at most three votes lets people appreciate more good posters. Voting for someone and letting them know why you appreciate their posts builds community. Voting for more than one would thereby build community even more. It also shouldn't matter whether you got ranked one, two or three. Such petty distinctions can increase conflict rather than increase community.

The preferences for nominees isn't analogous to people's preferences for parties in a multiparty system in that preferences aren't as ingrained and the final outcome of the vote isn't as important as the appreciation shown for all nominees in the voting-process.

dlw

[Socrates]

That would never work in Florida where confusion reigned over which circle to filll in. Buchanen or Gore, Buchanen or Gore.

Surely even Floridans can count up to 10! That's all you have to do under the preferential system, and the optional preferential system means that you don't even have to count up that high.

[Socrates]

I don't like the ranking system because I think voting shouldn't be too full of rivalry.

But we have ranking already, but far more extreme. That is, you have to decide that one candidate is worth everything and the others nothing! Far better to get voters' opinions on ALL the candidates if they have any.

Rank me number one, me number two or so on would abstract from the fact that people can value different posters for different reasons and they need not say what reason is more important than the other.

Having at most three votes lets people appreciate more good posters.

This is arbitrary. Some may want to vote for only one, others may want more. They may feel strongly that both 1 is the best while 2 is far preferable to 3.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

But we have ranking already, but far more extreme. That is, you have to decide that one candidate is worth everything and the others nothing! Far better to get voters' opinions on ALL the candidates if they have any.

Why would we want to find out that someone listed us last in their ranking? And that would take too long to sort out, "okay I should rank this one, two, three, four or should the order be different?"

I don't think that is the message sent by the current system. And, as mentioned earlier, it sets out winning as way more important than it should be.



This is arbitrary. Some may want to vote for only one, others may want more. They may feel strongly that both 1 is the best while 2 is far preferable to 3.

Well, they may vote for one or two or three as they see fit. I don't see that as a problem in the system; if such reflects their views. And its not like they are being discriminated against since they decided that voting less than three times best reflected their views.

If it is arbitrary it is the fact there are three votes, but I figure this being a Christian site and all that that number would work.

So in summary: ensuring that votes perfectly reflect voter preferences is not so important. Making voting easier when there are many good candidates is important as also is increasing the community built from the voting process.

dlw

[$cirisme]

I was just trying to point out that objectively, its not how many votes one makes but one's ability to influence the final outcome that matters and that, while voting once may reduce one's influence in a way, it increases it in another way.
Agreed... but I'm not looking to increase people's influence.. just trying to make it fair and accurate is all that matters to me.

But the person chooses that there is only one candidate worth voting for. Unless they are always in this position then their relative influence would vary from month to month. I.e., this next month you think only one person is worth voting for and I vote for three, but the following month you have three people to vote for and I only one.
Not reliable and still not fair.

Those caveats exist with the current system.
And those are??

Not really. You chose to vote for only one person. If you believe in your heart only one person should win and the rest are just taking up space on the board in comparison to that one person then you would just have to accept that you'd get less votes.
And that's not fair. I shouldn't have to accept that my opinion is worth less than someone elses simply because I don't like all the candidates.

Besides, if that person was really that good then they would tend to win
Possibly, but not necissarily since what is "good" is completely subjective.

But that's irrelevant.

But when people value lots of candidates, having more votes makes the final tally better reflect how widely a candidate is appreciated by the community.

That's what pearls are for.

What are these? In Queensland there is optional preferential voting. So people can list all their preferences, or "just vote 1". This means that people who vote for a bottom candidate X have the option, not the compulsion, to answer the question: "X has no chance of winning, so who would you like instead?" If Cir feels strongly about only one candidate, he would not have to list second or other preferences.
Okay... so how is the victor determined? And how would you propose it be implemented here?

[luv1another]

:huh: I don't see any problems with how we are doing things now :eek:

[Socrates]

Okay... so how is the victor determined? And how would you propose it be implemented here?

People list all the candidates they want in order of preference, with 1 the best, 2 the second and so on. If no candidate wins an absolute majority (50% + 10 of valid votes cast) of primary votes, look at the second preferences. We take the voting cards of the bottom candidate Z, and find the second preferences of those who voted 1 for that candidate. If there are none, because they have 'just voted 1', then obviously they have no further role to play. But if not, their second preferences are distributed to the candidates. If there is still not an absolute majority, then the second preferences are distributed for the socond-bottom candidate Y -- and this will include some third preference votes from people who voted 1 Z, 2 Y.

The process continues until one candidate gets 50% + 1. This candidate will be the one preferred by a majority over all the others. It's impossible to elect a candidate over whom which the majority of voters would prefer another candidate.

See the illustration in www.eca.gov.au/systems/single/by_category/preferential.htm

But in the current system, it's possible, say, with 100 votes cast, to elect A with 40 votes, B with 35 and C with 25, although 20 of the C voters would prefer B to A. So in fact, 55 of the voters prefer B to A, so B would win under preferential (because C's second preferences would be distributed 20 to B and 5 for A). But the plurality system thwarts the will of the majority by electing A over B although only 45 people actually prefer A over B and more prefer the reverse. It nearly always results in a minority candidate being elected, and this one is not always the most preferred.

As for the argument that this system is "too complicated", all the voters have to do is count from 1 to 10, and even this isn't compulsory. They can let the programmers worry about the mechanics :wink:

[Socrates]

:huh: I don't see any problems with how we are doing things now :eek:
Thank goodness you're not in charge of our country's electoral process, otherwise we'd be taking a step back into the dark age of plurality voting, rejected by almost all democracies except the UK and the USA which retained their antiquated system :oldeek:

[$cirisme]

Thank goodness you're not in charge of our country's electoral process, otherwise we'd be taking a step back into the dark age of plurality voting, rejected by almost all democracies except the UK and the USA which retained their antiquated system :oldeek:
Please do not take this thread there. DLW posted a good suggestion and asked for comments... though I disagree with it I thank him for his effort to improve TW.

[Socrates]

I made some comments. Was my explanation of preferential voting OK? I've seen only one objection to it on this thread, so I hope I overcame that.

[Xmansmommy]

Some of us happen to think the current system has been working just fine for the last year. Why change it now? Vote for who you like and if you don't like anyone, don't vote. If the decision is hard...make a choice and vote or not. We're faced with choices every day. Some we like, some we don't. I didn't vote last month because it was too difficult for me to choose. Will that happen again? Sure, I have no doubt it will. And by looking at all the current nominees it will most likely happen again for me this month. Such is the nature of free will. :wink: I'd like to make a simple observation btw.....comparatively speaking, not that many TWebbers vote. :nsm:

[Da Lone-Warrior]

And I guess the only reason I want to allow people to vote at most 3 times is because I think given the quality of the posters of most nominees that the one-vote system leaves too many people either flipping a coin to decide who to vote for or not voting at all. I would have loved to be able to vote for more than one person last month and in earlier months as well.

I know this won't take care of the problem of not many Twebbers voting, but it shouldn't hurt it. Its just a minor modification of the system, letting us show our appreciation to a wider number of people.

dlw

[Socrates]

Some of us happen to think the current system has been working just fine for the last year. Why change it now? Vote for who you like and if you don't like anyone, don't vote. If the decision is hard...make a choice and vote or not. We're faced with choices every day. Some we like, some we don't. I didn't vote last month because it was too difficult for me to choose. Will that happen again? Sure, I have no doubt it will. And by looking at all the current nominees it will most likely happen again for me this month. Such is the nature of free will. :wink: I'd like to make a simple observation btw.....comparatively speaking, not that many TWebbers vote. :nsm:

I would have thought low voter turnout, whether in TWeb or national elections, was a huge flashing neon sign that something was wrong.

I have already shown why the current plurality system produces anomalous results even in a three-way election, and this is magnified with even more candidates. Can anyone produce a disadvantage to preferential voting? The only one who has so far is Cirisme, and I solved his problem by presenting the possibility of optional preferential voting.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Its too complicated and the fact that the system doesn't adequately reflect their preferences in full isn't the reason why many don't vote.

dlw

[Xmansmommy]

I would have thought low voter turnout, whether in TWeb or national elections, was a huge flashing neon sign that something was wrong.

That's really why you think people aren't voting? Usually it's the same 30 or so people that vote every month. :huh: I never really considered that it was because of the system but because that's how life is sometimes. It would be interesting to see folks response that don't vote monthly. See what they have to say as to why. But mainly everyone who has responded to this poll is the same people who usually vote. That should also be a huge flashing neon sign that most people don't particularly care one way or the other.

I have already shown why the current plurality system produces anomalous results even in a three-way election, and this is magnified with even more candidates. Can anyone produce a disadvantage to preferential voting? The only one who has so far is Cirisme, and I solved his problem by presenting the possibility of optional preferential voting.

To be absolutely and perfectly honest with you Soc, I have no clue what preferetial voting is so I can't comment one way or the other. :nsm:

[Stephen]

I always thought people didn't vote because they're lazy. Enough with your anarchist ideas.

[Socrates]

That's really why you think people aren't voting?

I was answering what you said about not many people voting, so why change. In such cases, one must wonder whether a voting system is so good.

Usually it's the same 30 or so people that vote every month. :huh:

And it almost always results in a winner with a minority of votes cast.

To be absolutely and perfectly honest with you Soc, I have no clue what preferetial voting is so I can't comment one way or the other. :nsm:

To be absolutely and perfectly honest with you XMM, I have to wonder whether you even read my clear explanation on Post#29.

[$cirisme]

Thanks socrates for the proposal. I will think it over.

[Xmansmommy]

Yes and I was :dizzy:...not trying to be rude but I just couldn't follow but that's nothing new. There are lots of things on this board that are far over my head. No biggie. And my comment wasn't mean to offend you brother. Sorry if you took offense.

[Socrates]

I always thought people didn't vote because they're lazy. Enough with your anarchist ideas.

No, because too many people (correctly) regard their vote as a waste. And wasted votes are endemic in the plurality system. E.g. a vote for a minor candidate is almost certain to be a wasted vote. Also, in a very "safe" seat, supporters of someone else realise it's a waste of time voting, and supporters of this person think they are not needed. This was glaring in Florida where the media declared the state for Bush and many republicans decided they needn't bother, and some TWeb elections have likewise been prematurely thought of as already won.

[Xmansmommy]

Soc, I am curious, have you had TWeb members come to you directly and tell you that they aren't voting for those reasons? I know I haven't personally. Maybe if that's the case you could encourage them to come forward and make their voice be heard so that changes can be made to try to best suit what the majority of TWeb wants. Just a thought.

[Lazy Agnostic]

People list all the candidates they want in order of preference, with 1 the best, 2 the second and so on. If no candidate wins an absolute majority (50% + 10 of valid votes cast) of primary votes, look at the second preferences. We take the voting cards of the bottom candidate Z, and find the second preferences of those who voted 1 for that candidate. If there are none, because they have 'just voted 1', then obviously they have no further role to play. But if not, their second preferences are distributed to the candidates. If there is still not an absolute majority, then the second preferences are distributed for the socond-bottom candidate Y -- and this will include some third preference votes from people who voted 1 Z, 2 Y.

The process continues until one candidate gets 50% + 1. This candidate will be the one preferred by a majority over all the others. It's impossible to elect a candidate over whom which the majority of voters would prefer another candidate.

See the illustration in www.eca.gov.au/systems/single/by_category/preferential.htm

But in the current system, it's possible, say, with 100 votes cast, to elect A with 40 votes, B with 35 and C with 25, although 20 of the C voters would prefer B to A. So in fact, 55 of the voters prefer B to A, so B would win under preferential (because C's second preferences would be distributed 20 to B and 5 for A). But the plurality system thwarts the will of the majority by electing A over B although only 45 people actually prefer A over B and more prefer the reverse. It nearly always results in a minority candidate being elected, and this one is not always the most preferred.

As for the argument that this system is "too complicated", all the voters have to do is count from 1 to 10, and even this isn't compulsory. They can let the programmers worry about the mechanics :wink:

Or--we could assign points for each voter's ranking and the winner would have the fewest cumulative points.

[Socrates]

Yes and I was :dizzy:...not trying to be rude but I just couldn't follow but that's nothing new. There are lots of things on this board that are far over my head. No biggie. And my comment wasn't mean to offend you brother. Sorry if you took offense.
My apologies too. :eek: Anyway, the main thing is, all you have to do is rank the candidates in your preferred order -- that's if you wanted to. Also, you could still vote for only one candidate, or any number you liked. That's all the voter has to worry about. It will mean that your vote influences the relative positions of all the candidates you choose to vote for.

And consider a situation where you liked X the best, but Y and Z had by far the best chance of winning and you strongly preferred Z to the current leader Y. Under the current plurality system, you have a dilemma: you want to vote for X, but if you do, it's a wasted vote, and still leaves Y ahead of Z. Cf. "a vote for Nader is a vote for GWB"; 'a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton". So you may well vote for Z so your vote has a chance of influencing the final result, but it's still not the one you really think is #1.

However, under preferential voting, you could vote for X in good conscience, because you could still rank Z above Y. That means your vote for X is not wasted, because your vote still influences the relative positions of Y and Z.

[$cirisme]

Thereare a couple things I don't care for about the preferential system...
- It violates the one man, one vote principle.... this is only exasperated by making it optional.

- It is less stable. Majority rule is not guaranteed and minorities have a greater voice....this is not always a good thing. And personally... I find the arguments surronding this(including this bullet point) to border on the silly. We're not electing people to positions of power, we're simply trying to show people we appreciate them. If people view it as too serious, then there is a serious problem... but if you view it in the way it is intended I don't think there is a problem with the results.

Besides:

- Who are the minorities? The only positions represented are whether or not the person deserves the award. Few people I know would(or should) put it into a preference of, well this one first, then that one next. In the current way you do have to choose one person over all others, though this is simply saying that you think said person should get it this time, regardless of opponents, whereas preferential system would essentially make it, "I only support you if your opponent is X." That has nothing to do with whether or not a person deserves the award.

- Frequently there are numerous candidates for which I have no preference on. So much so that I, and many, would likely take advantage that it's optional and not use it. If few use it what's the point :nsm:

- Alot of people do vote.... especially since the alumnus of the year. Now, I would qualify alot as meaning a percentage of the regular daily users... not as the full 3,000 membership. Not everyone will ever vote no matter what system there is.

- Too complicated. For it to work, we would need multiple pages for every person you have a preference on. This is bad, bad usability...I wouldn't even use it.
While I'm not saying the current one is perfect, it works and is fair and remain unconvinced a change is needed.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts though!

[$cirisme]

And the preferential system may be better than the plurality system for public office, but our needs are more unique.

[Tfbandie]

I don't think the voting is that much of a big deal to be all worked up about. It's an honor to be alumnus of month/year, but all in all not that important. I vote for who i think has done the best job posting, not strictly so that they "win", that's not my goal, but rather just another way to let them know they did a good job, and that I felt I learned from was better for reading their posts.

With that mentality, if any change, I would look at the top two or three, only because it lets you be able to congratulate/thank/ encourage posters that have improved your experience here at TWeb. The numbered (first chocie, second...) detracts from the idea of congratulating/thanking/encouraging in a way that's "well i think youre good, but not as good as X".
All in all, It's like pearls and rep, it's not that important overall, it's purpose (the way i think of it) is to acknowledge those who've made your Tweb experience better. It's just for fun afterall

[$cirisme]

I don't think the voting is that much of a big deal to be all worked up about. It's an honor to be alumnus of month/year, but all in all not that important. I vote for who i think has done the best job posting, not strictly so that they "win", that's not my goal, but rather just another way to let them know they did a good job, and that I felt I learned from was better for reading their posts.

With that mentality, if any change, I would look at the top two or three, only because it lets you be able to congratulate/thank/ encourage posters that have improved your experience here at TWeb. The numbered (first chocie, second...) detracts from the idea of congratulating/thanking/encouraging in a way that's "well i think youre good, but not as good as X".
All in all, It's like pearls and rep, it's not that important overall, it's purpose (the way i think of it) is to acknowledge those who've made your Tweb experience better. It's just for fun afterall
Exactly :thumb:

[themuzicman]

How about the moderators, AAs, As, and Os nominate and pick the Alumnus of the month, with that person being a non-mod, and everyone else picking a moderator of the month?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Or we could rank the Moderators/Admins and have the results made public.

uh-uh...
dlw

[Socrates]

Thereare a couple things I don't care for about the preferential system...
- It violates the one man, one vote principle.... this is only exasperated by making it optional.

It does no such thing! There IS only one vote per person. It's just that the vote is a more wide ranging reflection of the will of each voter. A true violation would be if selected people were allowed to vote twice.

- It is less stable.

Now you're bringing in arguments from the wider political world. Stability is a non-issue for teh TWeb alumnus. But my posts on Proportional Representation have addressed the instrability furphy. In fact, the current plurality system is far more unstable, because comparatively few swing voters result in a change of government and humungous swings of policy. But with PR, large policy changes would need the support of a true majority of people. Would you call Germany unstable, compared with the UK, e.g. nationalization then denationalization then renationalization?

Majority rule is not guaranteed

It's certainly not guaranteed with plurality, and often doesn't happen!

and minorities have a greater voice....this is not always a good thing.

Actually, with plurality, a minority usually has an almost absolute voice! I.e. a candidate elected by a minority of the people takes all, and the rest have no representation.

And personally... I find the arguments surronding this(including this bullet point) to border on the silly. We're not electing people to positions of power, we're simply trying to show people we appreciate them.

Right, so why not give voters a chance to show appreciation for more than one candidate?

[QUOTE=cirisme]If people view it as too serious, then there is a serious problem... but if you view it in the way it is intended I don't think there is a problem with the results.

But if a system is worth having at all, then it is worth running well.

Besides:

- Who are the minorities? The only positions represented are whether or not the person deserves the award. Few people I know would(or should) put it into a preference of, well this one first, then that one next.

Why not, if the nominees are worthy?

Most Americans are so insular that they think their way is the only possible way. Yet the low voter turnout should scream out that this is not so. A lot of people actually DO agonize over the dilemma I put to XMM.

In the current way you do have to choose one person over all others, though this is simply saying that you think said person should get it this time, regardless of opponents, whereas preferential system would essentially make it, "I only support you if your opponent is X."

That's not so at all. Preferential voting DOES say that one person should get it above all else. But it also says that I still prefer B over C, and asks the voter: "I know you preferred A, but since A can't win, who would you like instead?"

That has nothing to do with whether or not a person deserves the award.

What does this mean? What is the justification for denying voters the option of saying that B is also very deserving but not as much as A?

- Frequently there are numerous candidates for which I have no preference on. So much so that I, and many, would likely take advantage that it's optional and not use it. If few use it what's the point :nsm:

If you don't want to use it, then you don't have to. But there are many cases where it is desirable to be able to rank more than one of the candidates, and I have given examples.

- Alot of people do vote.... especially since the alumnus of the year. Now, I would qualify alot as meaning a percentage of the regular daily users... not as the full 3,000 membership. Not everyone will ever vote no matter what system there is.

True. But more people are likely to vote if the system reflected their will better, rather than restricting it to only one candidate at the exclusion of their views on all the others.

- Too complicated.

Well, I know the American education system has large shortcomings, I really thought that counting up to 10 was within the capabilities of its products. :tongue:

For it to work, we would need multiple pages for every person you have a preference on. This is bad, bad usability...I wouldn't even use it.

Why? Secret ballots are better anyway.

While I'm not saying the current one is perfect, it works and is fair and

Ipse dixit. How is a system "fair" if a candidate is elected with a minority of total votes, and is a majority prefer another candidate to him? How can this be said to be "working"?

remain unconvinced a change is needed.

So does the American two-party duopoly.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Chill man!

I'd love to have your system be used in primaries here in the US. I doubt it could become the main-system for voting in the near future, but there are other modifications that would definitely help.

But TWeb's Alumnus of the Month is different. The stakes are different.

Increasing community by voting for a nominee is the main goal. Ranking all the nominees will not help in this regard.

dlw

[Socrates]

I'd love to have your system be used in primaries here in the US. I doubt it could become the main-system for voting in the near future, but there are other modifications that would definitely help.

I hope so, thanx. I think preferential voting for governor, primaries and president would be ideal, but for the Congress, I suggest single transferable vote.

But TWeb's Alumnus of the Month is different. The stakes are different.

Increasing community by voting for a nominee is the main goal. Ranking all the nominees will not help in this regard.

I would have thought that singling only ONE candidate out of 10 was reducing community, while having the option, not the compulsion, to rank them in order would increase community.

And I still haven't seen my concern addressed, as expressed in the dilemma I put to XMM. I.e. strongly feeling that A is the best, but also strongly thinking that B is better than C, but if you vote A it might help C to beat B.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I would have thought that singling only ONE candidate out of 10 was reducing community, while having the option, not the compulsion, to rank them in order would increase community.

No, because no-one takes it personally when they don't get voted for, but they might take it personally if they get ranke 4th instead of 3rd or so on...

And I still haven't seen my concern addressed, as expressed in the dilemma I put to XMM. I.e. strongly feeling that A is the best, but also strongly thinking that B is better than C, but if you vote A it might help C to beat B.

Um, a situation like that would undermine TWeb. We should mandate that TWebbers take a brief course on how to strategically-vote before they can vote for alumnus of the month again.

dlw

[$cirisme]

Now you're bringing in arguments from the wider political world. :duh: I stated so...and I didn't see this as any form of an argument. :huh:

Stability is a non-issue for teh TWeb alumnus. Why Soc I didn't know you were l33t! :wink:

Neither are minorities/majorities... whoever they might be.

Actually, with plurality, a minority usually has an almost absolute voice! I.e. a candidate elected by a minority of the people takes all, and the rest have no representation. And at TW... what is there to represent? That people appreciated that person... for whatever reason?

Why not, if the nominees are worthy? That makes no sense in the context of what you quoted. :huh:

Most Americans are so insular that they think their way is the only possible way. I know an Australian like that. :wink:

In all seriousness... this isn't helping your case to me.

Yet the low voter turnout should scream out that this is not so. A lot of people actually DO agonize over the dilemma I put to XMM. Then they need to go outside, get some fresh air, and listen to the birds chirp. It will really put things into perspective for them.

What does this mean? What is the justification for denying voters the option of saying that B is also very deserving but not as much as A? Because it really turns the system into something that is extraordinarily petty. So what if your person does not win? You've shown that person you appreciate them, and that's the point, really. I do not consider it a waste to vote for someone that doesn't win. I've shown that person that I appreciate them, for whatever subjective reasons I have. How can I rank how apreciative I am of someone? I certainly can't do that, and I think it will promote pettiness if that's something that is encouraged.

And despite your prior assertion... if I vote for someone, that does not mean that I think the others are somehow unworthy or that I don't appreciate them. In fact, this month I'm going to give some pearls to people I appreciate but am not going to vote for.

I think that most people understand that if I vote for someone else, that does not mean that I think any less of them. And if they do think that, they are already petty and a new system similar to what you suggest would only exasperate that feeling.

Well, I know the American education system has large shortcomings Again, this gets you nowhere... and explained how it was too complex. Every candidate would be on it's own page which is a usability nightmare and time consuming.(especially months where there are lots of candidates that I know little about)

Why? Secret ballots are better anyway. Not for our purposes.

Ipse dixit. You really do love me. :bravo:

How is a system "fair" if a candidate is elected with a minority of total votes, and is a majority prefer another candidate to him? How can this be said to be "working"? It goes to what the system is supposed to do in the first place which I highlighted above.

:smile:

[Socrates]

No, because no-one takes it personally when they don't get voted for, but they might take it personally if they get ranke 4th instead of 3rd or so on...
Surely people would be far less offended at 4 v 3 than not-at-all v 1.

Um, a situation like that would undermine TWeb.
Why?

We should mandate that TWebbers take a brief course on how to strategically-vote before they can vote for alumnus of the month again.
That strategic voting is even an issue screams loudly against the blatant unfairness and antidemocratic nature of plurality voting.

[Queen]

There are too many potential candidates and too many noteworthy posters for us to only have one vote.

So I'd like to suggest again that one have the right to vote for at most three persons, so long as they aren't oneselve or whoever we nominated.

This will make voting easier, since we won't have to wait until all ten candidates are nominated and we won't have to flip a coin or log in with different user-names when there are many posters of merit.

So what say ye?

I would love to vote on three people, because I have to do a lot of ini mini moni mo or what ever it is called in english

Great idea dlw!!!

[Socrates]

Why? Secret ballots are better anyway.
Not for our purposes.
Now you agree with me :cheers: Thus collapses a major case against adopting the fairer preferential system.

The current alumnus is turning into another two-horse race, and the major atheist candidate is again benefiting from the split in the Christian vote ("spoilers" they would be called in national elections). Such things are practically inevitable with the backward plurality ("first past the post") system.

PS: Vote for Mossrose! :mossrose: See graphic below :wink:

[$cirisme]

Now you agree with me :cheers: Not entirely. I came up with a good compromise that fits with the intended purpose(nominees can see who voted for them) whilst prevents the inevitable misunderstandings of "Do you really llike me since you voted for someone else? :bawl:"... so really, now, preferential voting is even less likely to be implemeneted.

The primary purpose for the change was to let people vote in peace. No one will know whether you voted or not(except for the person you voted for) so you won't be bugged to death till you vote, which was annoying to me. They'll have to guess whether you voted or now... which I like better. There are other changes too, but I see no one has figured out what they are yet. :hehe:

[mossrose]

Not entirely. I came up with a good compromise that fits with the intended purpose(nominees can see who voted for them) whilst prevents the inevitable misunderstandings of "Do you really llike me since you voted for someone else? :bawl:"... so really, now, preferential voting is even less likely to be implemeneted.

The primary purpose for the change was to let people vote in peace. No one will know whether you voted or not(except for the person you voted for) so you won't be bugged to death till you vote, which was annoying to me. They'll have to guess whether you voted or now... which I like better. There are other changes too, but I see no one has figured out what they are yet. :hehe:
I like the fact that no one can see who I voted for, except that person. :thumb:

But, I feel dumb. Please explain the other changes, Cir?

[Amazing Rando]

I like the fact that no one can see who I voted for, except that person. :thumb:

But, I feel dumb. Please explain the other changes, Cir?

Boooo! I hate it! Bring back public voting! :rant:

[$cirisme]

I like the fact that no one can see who I voted for, except that person. :thumb:

But, I feel dumb. Please explain the other changes, Cir?
It's not dumb at all... it's a rather small change that few would notice.

Here is the URL used to vote for you:

alumnus.php?do=vote&u=1565&votestring=c5b4fd331d43553dedf4f69f986251d7

I added the part in bold to the system. It is not random, but generated based on some specific values. It is tainted with the time so that this string is only good for two hours, and it is only good for me. This makes it impossible to link directly to the voting page unless you know the values used in making the string.(well, threoretically, of course. There could be some hidden bug in the operating system, for example, that allows you to get around it...but that's extraordinarily slim)

Even if you could, somehow, figure out the values used in making this string for every potential voter, the link is good for only two hours. :smile:

The purpose of this is two-fold. Theoretically, you could use an image and create automatic voting for everyone logged in and that hasn't voted. This couldn't happen here since we have images disabled... but it is another form of security, cause I'm paranoid. The other thing is, you can't directly link to the voting page. You have to link to the alumnus page, which means people can see all the contestants before voting.

That's the reason the change was made. :smile:

[Jimmy Higgins]

That strategic voting is even an issue screams loudly against the blatant unfairness and antidemocratic nature of plurality voting.
Poor Socrates. You still haven't gotten over losing in the Alumnist of the Year contest. Geesh, just move on. :lol:

[$cirisme]

Let's not turn this into a flame war.

[Christianotaku]

Poor Socrates. You still haven't gotten over losing in the Alumnist of the Year contest. Geesh, just move on.


Poor Jimmy higgins your an atheist condemned to hell. :ahem:

[$cirisme]

Sigh, as I said let's not turn this into a flamewar. Don't make me close another thread because of you, CO.

[Tfbandie]

I think the changes made were very good. while the curious part of me does want to know who voted for who, all it is gossip. I think the secret ballots further the purpose of why I think Alumnus was created: to give support and show appreciation for consistently quality posters. Who I vote for should only be between me and that poster (unless i decide to make it public) because it is a private issue, my showing support and appreciation.

The only other change that I see that i might agree with would be to allow to vote for 2 as opposed to 1 person. But If that change is not made (and i think there are good reasons not to) than I am just aas satisfied with this current system. Alumnus shouldn't be all about winning and losing.

[mossrose]

It's not dumb at all... it's a rather small change that few would notice.

Here is the URL used to vote for you:

alumnus.php?do=vote&u=1565&votestring=c5b4fd331d43553dedf4f69f986251d7

I added the part in bold to the system. It is not random, but generated based on some specific values. It is tainted with the time so that this string is only good for two hours, and it is only good for me. This makes it impossible to link directly to the voting page unless you know the values used in making the string.(well, threoretically, of course. There could be some hidden bug in the operating system, for example, that allows you to get around it...but that's extraordinarily slim)

Even if you could, somehow, figure out the values used in making this string for every potential voter, the link is good for only two hours. :smile:

The purpose of this is two-fold. Theoretically, you could use an image and create automatic voting for everyone logged in and that hasn't voted. This couldn't happen here since we have images disabled... but it is another form of security, cause I'm paranoid. The other thing is, you can't directly link to the voting page. You have to link to the alumnus page, which means people can see all the contestants before voting.

That's the reason the change was made. :smile:
Oh. Thanks Cir. Now I understand it all perfectly!!

(:what:)

:lol:

[Socrates]

Poor Socrates. You still haven't gotten over losing in the Alumnist of the Year contest. Geesh, just move on. :lol:
Lessee, I won the first ever monthly Alumnus, and was runner up in the yearly alumnus with double the votes of the third place. Higgy has so far managed only ONE vote in the current race, the loser :haha: Nor is he capable of judging the merits of preferential voting and instead resorts to the childish genetic fallacy.

[Em7add11]

Hey wait, I only have one vote too. :bawl:

Also, if this is going to disgress any more I'll send this to the Locker Room.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

But that would discriminate against people who only think one person nominated is worthy of becoming the alumnus of the month!

How about linking the number of votes to the size of one's reputation :wink:?

dlw

[dizzle]

Love-Warrior what do you have against GrayPilgrim?

[Socrates]

If the majority of people prefer A to B, yet B is elected, how on earth can this reflect the democratic will of the people?

Yet the current plurality voting system often results in this, so can this be called a fair system? A preferential voting system really does reflect the preferences of the majority, so what's wrong with it?

[Socrates]

Boooo! I hate it! Bring back public voting! :rant:
There's something to be said for not publishing the scores till the end. Then people would be more likely to vote for the candidate they really want, not the least disliked in a two-horse race. Of course, preferential voting would avoid this problem too :whistle:

[$cirisme]

I've already explained in this thread why I like it this way.

If that doesn't satisfy you, then I'm not going to repeat it.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I would meekly like to suggest that my previously proposed system might be worth reconsideration when it comes time for the next Alumnus of the Year election.

dlw