Congratulations to the new Board members - I am sure you will do a great
job. And commiserations to those who will be leaving the Board - thank you
for all your hard work over many years.

Also it is good to see a much higher turnout in this year's elections than
in 2013 - well done to those involved :)

On the subject of voting systems, though...

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Anders Wennersten <>

> David Cuenca Tudela skrev den 2015-06-06 09:01:
>> However I must say that the results of this election are hilarious. The
>> person with the most support votes doesn't win because of oppose votes :D
>>  Why hilarious? We had a full consensus in the election Committee to go
> for S/N/O voting, it is a kind of standard procedure in the Wikimedia world.

Many people looked at voting systems before the Wikimedia movement existed
and virtually none of them settled on the system we ended up with. Perhaps
this should tell us something!

To my mind the key problems with the present system are:
1) Oppose votes have greater weight than support votes. In this case, Maria
would have needed 136 additional support votes to win, or 46 fewer oppose
votes. In effect an Oppose vote was worth 2.96 times as much as a support
vote for her. As a result, being non-opposed is much more important than
being supported. The penalty for doing anything controversial is

2) There is nothing in the process to produce any diversity in the result.
Say that there was a 2/3 to 1/3 split in the electorate on some important
issue. The right answer would surely be that you elect 2 people with one
view and 1 with the other. However, in this voting system you would likely
end up electing 3 people from the majority point of view. Because the
Wikimedia movement is much more complex than this it is difficult to
conclude that there was any particular issue like this that would have
affected the result, but still, the point applies. The voting system builds
in homogeneity not diversity.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to