On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 08:48 -0500, Dominic Lachowicz wrote: > > Well that's totally against the spirit of voting. Current counts may > > change people's idea and might get them affected and they would vote > > strategically instead of on their own free will. > > I'm sure that a large percentage of foundation memebers voted > strategically; they just did so blindly and of their own free will. > > I don't know about other countries, but during elections in the US, > precincts report back data as they process it, and that data is > broadcast on the news. They'll say "55% of people voted for candidate > X and 40% for candidate Y with 20% of the votes counted so far". > Whether this is useful, harmful, or just airtime filler, I don't know. In Turkey, where I live, it's forbidden to reflect results or even survey results during voting period ends. Because it largely affect voter's decision (I concur this idea) ie. some voters think a party is already a head of others, and there's no need to vote for it, or they think a party get too much vote and they should not vote for them to leverage the results, which end up different parlement than as it should be. Well the situation is maybe different for a country elections, and board elections but the logic behind it does not change. > > > Actually what Stallman and others did during voting is campaigning and > > this should have ended before voting get started. It's very likely that > > some people on the middle of their voting see these endorsements and > > vote them to fill their seven people limit (because of their respect to > > Stallman or other endorser, not because they personally want the one in > > board) even though they do not know who those guys are. > > Since when is listening to and trusting another person's informed > opinions wrong? And since when does campaigning not happen on election > day ;-) If I hadn't formed my own opinion and I trusted Richard > enough, I might follow his lead. I don't see anything wrong with > deferring to another person's good judgement. Nor do I see anything > wrong with a person convincing you to vote for candidate X when you're > on your way to the polls. You're always free not to listen and free to > inform (or not inform) yourself however you like to before you vote. > That's just democracy in action. Well, I did not say that endorsing a candidate is wrong. That should be even good. But the problem is timing. Yes, this is democracy, but there's also human psycology. As what I seen from the psycology classes I took, I can say that high percentage of humans are get affected easily due to small interaction. To let them free of this, and let them think without any outside interactions, we should let them on their own for this duration. To increase that notion, I can put an example like, people are more likely to vote nationalist candidates when they are recalled of their death before they make their decisions. But before voting, before they had no chance to instance action of voting, giving them some idea can not be bad. Those are just to make it more ideal as I don't want to see situation (I'm not claiming you're doing either) as "what the heck, it's just a board election". > > Best. > Dom > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part