Author: Mark Ryan
Date: 23:43:17 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 18:59:41, Steve B wrote: >On February 15, 2005 at 18:46:22, John Merlino wrote: > >>On February 15, 2005 at 18:40:42, Steve B wrote: >> >>>>I just checked that, since the entire history is available. >>>> >>>>15 candidates out of a total of 33 winners were in the first three listed on the >>>>ballot. >>>> >>>>But the last time that the winners came from NONE of the top three listed was >>>>back in 1998, so....draw your own conclusions.... >>> >>>i went back to the last three CCC elections(counting this one) >>>i dont count the CTF which is a whole nother world onto itself >>>it was 7-9 from the top three >>>that almost 78% >>> >>>there is sonmething to this >>> >>>Steve >> >>I checked the entire history of CCC elections (not the CTF), which resulted in >>the above tally. > > >ah ok then >lets take the CTF into account >:) > >it was 7-9 for the CTF as well(Last three) >so we are looking at 14-18 > >too statistically high to be ignored > >to be honest i dont see what the big deal would have been to simply scramble the >names up on the ballot > >where is the harm in trying it once? >beats me > >Steve A Google search of "ballot rotation" shows that Ohio has practised ballot rotation, with some success, since 1949: Candidate Name Order http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/equipment_ballot.html ... and Tasmania since 1974: Ballot Rotation http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/Backg/HAElections.htm However, it makes more work for the election officer. Mark
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.