Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:42:19 01/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 00:35:36, Roger wrote: >I think this is a good idea. You should be able to vote for someone and against >someone. In a case where you are voting for three moderators from a pool of six, >I think you should be able to vote against at least one person, and preferably >two. > >It often happens in life that you are not exactly sure who you want for a >position, but you are damned sure who you don't want. Voting ought to reflect >this, so that the moderators chosen conform MOSTLY to likes of the voters, >embodying their dislikes as little as possible. > >That is why only this form of voting can deal with a situation in which a group >is polarized into two camps of approximately equal size, both of whom favor >their own pet candidate. > >Unfortunately, voting against someone reveals the negative side of human nature, >and as such, this kind of polling is not very popular. > >Roger > On the surface, this type of thing sounds good, but it does not work. For example, say you have "two camps" as you state above. Most people in camp one will vote for their favorite person and against their least favorite person. The same will happen in camp two. Hence, the person who would have received a 60% support suddenly gets 15% of the votes. Another person who would have gotten a 55% support suddenly also gets 15% of the votes (since these are the two big candidates from opposing camps, they also get the majority of negative votes). And hence, instead of these two individuals (who may be perfectly fine candidates with different platforms) end up in 5th and 6th place respectively and three other people with a 20% to a 35% support end up as moderators. I think I would prefer people with differing platforms than people who very few people vote in. KarinsDad :)
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.