Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:24:50 03/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2004 at 18:56:28, steven blincoe wrote: >>> >>>>>Final Results: >>>>>Michael Byrne 28.29 % >>>>>Richard Pijl 24.22 % >>>>>Russell Reagan 21.12 % >>>>>Peter Skinner 13.95 % >>>>>Stuart Taylor 12.40 % >> >>It is a well-known annoyance in voting procedures that many people will vote for >>the first N names on the ballot they see. The candidates appeared in >>alphabetical order, and the first N were the winners. > > >while it cannot be said for certain that this indeed is what occurred,a shroud >of doubt now covers the election process. > i hereby and forthwith make the following Election procedure modification >recommendations: > >Firstly..to insure that voters will no longer pick the first 3 names by >alphabetical order at the top of the list... > >each time the ballot page is refreshed, the candidates names should be randomly >ordered on the election list,much like Fischer Random Chess > >people wishing to vote for the candidates they want will of course be uneffected >by the placement of names on the list and those that choose otherwise will not >be creating an election result skewed towards a candidates name by birth > >Secondly... >before a vote can be officially tallied, a series of emails should be initiated >between the voter and the folks maintaining this site > >first a request to place the vote,,followed by a "go ahead and vote"reply >then a reply confirming that the vote was indeed cast,to be followed up by a >confirmation of same > >i invision perhaps no more then 6-8 back and forth emails before the vote is >officially counted > >the slight drawback of this of course, is that instead of 525 some odd votes >cast the total would probably be reduced to under 25,,but the quality and >integrity of the voting will be restored > >Lastly..it should be noted that many tens of thousands of chess programmers >gave their very lifes in order for us to exercise the freedom to vote in free >elections here ..i think we should take at least vote by am means other then >pure hunt and peck If people have a big difference in opion with one or more of the moderators, they will pick someone else and not go by position. I picked the first three, and would have picked them if they were in any other permutation. However, the 4th and 5th candidates would have also been excellent moderators and I would have felt no dissapointment had they been chosen. A tempest in a teapot to be sure.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.