[For the record I'm running the vote dumps now that should allow some of
that analysis to be done by those interested. No exact promises on timing
because while I'll send it out today it will take some time to approve for
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <polime...@gmail.com>
> > Well, the funny thing with current system is that if people had voted in
> > most rational way - i.e. to maximize the impact of their votes - the
> > results would have been negative for all candidates - as this year none
> > them got more than 50% of positive votes. But in fact if all people would
> > vote in that way - negative votes would be negligible - as the result
> > be simple exactly the same as if there will be no "no" votes - in both
> > methods of calculation :-) What makes negative votes so important is just
> > because people are not voting in rational way as they have some mental
> > objections to vote "no". But those brave ones (or smart ones or bad ones)
> > enough to vote "no" have much higher impact on the results than the
> > - which I think is not good by itslef.
> > By the way would interesting to know how many voters voted only "yes" and
> > "no", and how many voted "yes" for only one candidate and "no" for all
> > others (the most impact for selected candidate).
> Based on the numbers, it's likely that the voting was dominantly like:
> "I want this candidate or two"; "I have no opinion about these
> candidates"; and "I really really wouldn't like to see this one or two
> as Board members".
> I'd say that our democracy depends on such behavior of voters, as at
> the end we are getting good people in the Board, no matter who has
> been elected particularly. However, it could change and it could have
> dramatic consequences, as we are operating with small numbers.
> What's more likely to be seen as the outcome of "rational voting" is
> to get one or few candidates with 50% less opposing votes and although
> it wouldn't need to be bad in the sense of particular candidates, it
> would make very negative consequences to the rest of the community.
> First time such thing happens, next time we'd have bitter fight for
> every vote. And that would be the changing point: from friendly to
> competitive atmosphere. It would also mean that we'd get serious
> hidden lobby groups. (We have them now, but it's relaxed and much more
> about "it would be great if our candidate would pass", than about
> serious fights for own candidates.)
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: