From: | "Nicolas Durand" <nicolas(at)enitiatives.ch> |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 22 May 2007 13:22:03 +0200 |
Subject: | RE: [WDDM] WDDM BoardElections results |
Dear all, I’ve been away from an internet connection for 10 days now and discover these results and would like to make a few humble comments. 1) this “Range voting” is a little confusing, especially with this small number of participants, especially if people are allowed to register after the start of elections, especially if the winners are the ones with the highest “Average rating” and not the “Sum” for a number of reasons: a) someone who had LESS votes than another can be elected at his place, e.g. Richard Moore or Miroslav, who were elected, even though George had more votes (as given below). In fact, 6 people (everybody) voted FOR George, and still, he comes third-last… b) 2 “friends” could come first a the elections: they just had to register just before the deadline and vote for each other: they would have had 198 points (2x99), which is about the quorum and an average rating of 99. c) This brings me to the next item: by giving 1 “point” to someone, you actually put him down (by lowering his average). This might be a technique, but needs to be explicated very clearly to avoid people thinking “I’ll give him just some points, but not too many”. Actually, in this case, anyone giving less than 62 points (the lowest average of the top 3) has put this candidate DOWN. Not very logic in my opinion. 2) In my eyes, the whole voting process and timeline needs to be
revisited. I did not vote (partly because I was away for 10 days, which
virtually never happens, but still, in a real democracy, everyone should be
able to vote). This is certainly not to dismiss Mirek’s great job of putting
this together; it is just to improve the process, especially from a frustrated voter
who could not vote… ;) a. Announce the voting period well in advance (e.g. “Voting will be from May 9 to May 18, midnight Pacific time”), so that people can make sure they don’t miss it. I would give at least 2 weeks of voting time, to allow people to be away of an internet connection for a few days without too much stress. b. The subject of the email announcing the vote must be extremely clear. This one was “Latest news from WDDM”. It should be “WDDM – Elections are now open!” c. All material (Candidate names, voting period and methods, etc.) must be in this email d. One reminder should come after one week. Another one should come 24h before elections close. These were my 2 cents… I hope this helps. Take care, Nico From: WDDM webmaster [wbm@world-wide-democracy.net] Dear all: : Elections and Votings :: You are WddmAdmin
|
WDDM Executive Board ElectionsRange (0..99); secret (encrypted);
voter ID not scrambled
|
Number of voters: 6
Winning candidates are those with the highest 'Average rating' out of all who
achieved a quorum,
i.e., their 'Sum of all ratings' is not smaller than the quorum, which equals
one half of the greatest 'Sum of all ratings' achieved by any candidate. Quorum
is 194.5. Candidates
with a quorum are marked in blue. The 3
winning candidates in green.
Candidate |
No. of numeric ratings |
Sum of all ratings |
Average rating |
George Kokkas |
6 |
294 |
49.00 |
Mark Antell |
6 |
389 |
64.83 |
Nicolas Durand |
5 |
242 |
48.40 |
Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan (PVR) |
4 |
158 |
39.50 |
Miroslav Kolář |
4 |
248 |
62.00 |
Richard Moore |
4 |
291 |
72.75 |
Doug Everingham |
3 |
162 |
54.00 |
bruce eggum |
2 |
103 |
51.50 |