Re: Anonymous Voting Referendum (via digest)

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Dave Neary wrote:

> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200
> From: Dave Neary <dneary free fr>
> Reply-To: bolsh gimp org
> To: foundation-list gnome org, foundation-list-request gnome org
> Cc: foundation-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Anonymous Voting Referendum (via digest)
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Alan Horkan wrote:
> > In a proportional representation system it makes sense to clearly
> > indicate your preference for all (or almost all candidates).
>
> >From this I'll assume you're talking about the single transferrable
> >vote system

> that is used in Ireland? It doesn't really make sense to talk about a pure
> proportional representation system in a GNOME election since we don't really
> have a party system (except for the Novell party, the RedHat party, the Sun
> party, and the independents).

I dont even see what politcal parties has to do with it.

Almost every election I've ever voted in has used the system, and we
certainly didn't have politcal parties in our school elections.

It means the least unpopular people get elected, the moderates.

> As you point out, STV is very hard to count. I agree that giving
> everyone 12 votes or whatever it is isn't exactly an ideal system, but I
> don't think that STV is the solution.

Anonymous voting was stated as a solution that would help get people to
vote for people based on who they thought was best for the job rather than
voting for their friends.

Using preferential voting, listing the candidates in order of preference
could also help alleviate this problem.

Like I said in the current system it is better not to use all 12 of your
votes, because each vote is equally valued every vote for another
candidate reduces the odds of your favourite candidate getting elected.


> days, with multiple recounts and margins of 2 or 3 votes. It is also a
> very difficult system to verify, and I wouldn't reccommend it to anyone.

we are not talking about paper ballots here

in the paper system it is impractical to count every vote so random
samplings are taken of the surplus votes, this is where a lot of the
variation comes in.

unfortunately the morons who implemented the electronic voting systems
for Ireland implented this nasty hack, utterly failing to take advantage
of the electronic system to do a full and mathematically correct transfer
of surplus votes.

> > system needs to automated anyway and it is the fairest possible democratic
> > system.
>
> This is indeed a bold claim... how do you see PR working for the
> foundation elections? What makes you think it's the fairest possible
> democratic solution?

I freely admit the company quotas probably have a much more profound
effect on the elections than anything else but I think preferential
voting will help get people to vote not just for their friends but to rate
all the candidates.

With preferential voting people dont necessarily get exactly what they
want but it gives a result that represents the majority.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
Inkscape, Draw Freely http://inkscape.org
Free SVG Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org