I know there is always too much of discussion when elections are open (if
only because I was myself the Election Administrator for a number of
years); however, I'd like to share some praise, but also ask a simple
question.

I received my ballot, and voted it.  We have an amazing slate of candidates
for the board, and I will be enthusiastic if any of those whom I DID NOT
vote for happen to win.  Folks can vote as they feel is best, but I would
personally recommend that you NOT vote specifically for exactly 11
candidates.

Rather, what kinda works best with Approval Voting is to look at each
individual candidate statement, and set a threshold of enthusiasm for that
person, voting for each independently accordingly.  If you happen to cast
17 Yeses, there is no harm in that (other voters will vote differently, and
there will be some total votes for each person); likewise if you happen to
only vote 3 Yeses.

However, that's not my comment or question.  Rather, I thought about the
order of the ballot.  And I happen to live with another PSF Voting Member,
so asked her about her order (although not about her votes).  To my
pleasure, she receive a ballot listing candidates in a different order than
mine.  I think that is GREAT, and commend the Election Administrator on
this.  Varying order reduces unconscious bias (i.e. voters are likely to
vote for the first few they like, then tire of the choices "down ballot"
... it's human).

I am curious though, about exactly how this was done.  That is, was the
software enhanced to randomize order for each individual voter? Or was it
more like what I did in some past years, and there are simply 3-4 batches
of ballots (but each order sent to 100 voters or whatever), each one with a
different ordering? Either way is good, but of course the first is better
if the software happens to support it now.

Best wishes, David...

-- 
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the
uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting
advocates of freedom in prisons.  Intellectual property is
to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
_______________________________________________
PSF-Community mailing list
PSF-Community@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community

Reply via email to