Re: time to (re)consider preferential voting?
- From: Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>
- To: James Henstridge <james jamesh id au>
- Cc: Luis Villa <luis tieguy org>, Foundation-List <foundation-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: time to (re)consider preferential voting?
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:44:39 -0600
[snip plenty of good discussion]
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 10:33 +0900, James Henstridge wrote:
> On 17/02/2008, Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org> wrote:
> > Any preferential voting systems is going to make the
> > voting process more difficult. If I had had to order
> > my votes in previous elections, I'm sure it would have
> > been mostly arbitrary. If it's not solving any real
> > problems, why bother?
> Is it really that much more difficult to order a list of ten
> candidates as opposed to selecting 7 out of the 10?
I don't want to drag this argument out, and I'm not going to
fight against preferential voting if that's what people want.
But yes, I really do think it's hard to order a list of ten
candidates. I don't usually even select seven out of ten.
In the last election, I selected maybe four or five. Why?
Because I just don't have a strong enough opinion on the
others, and I think a random vote is worse than no vote.
> Even if you aren't sure of a total ordering, you can probably pick a
> few candidates that you definitely want elected (put them at the top)
> and some candidates you definitely don't want elected (put them at the
> bottom). You might decide to order the remainder randomly if you
> don't care about them.
If, as your argument above indicates, this ordering can
have drastic impacts on the outcome of the vote, I would
not want to order them randomly. Would the system still
allow me to order my top five, and abstain of everybody
else? A voting system that doesn't allow abstaining has
] [Thread Prev