[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Ambassadors] Are ambassadors happy with range voting for FAmSCo?

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Neville A. Cross <nacross gmail com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 9:13 PM, inode0 <inode0 gmail com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure about the election history of FAmSCo, maybe someone who
>> has been around a while can explain how it used to work, but I'm
>> guessing range voting has been used in the past two FAmSCo elections.
>> Are ambassadors happy with this method of electing the ambassador
>> leadership?
>> Aside from the voting method, are there other things related to the
>> election or composition of FAmSCo that ambassadors think would improve
>> either the process or the constitution of the steering committee?
>> John
> John,
> I am not used to range voting, but I have nothing against that method.
> I do have some suggestion regarding the election process. I was
> commented about during the election process but I dropped the issue
> because I felt that I was disrupting the process. I did wanted "to
> change rules at the middle of the game." Now that elections are over I
> suggest to amend rules before next run.
> I suggest that the candidate statements should be closed on the same
> date of volunteering for the seat. If some one does not want to write
> a statement is okey to leave it blank.
> Other suggestion is to stablish an order for the list of candidates. I
> don't care if it is ordered by time of volunteering or if it is
> alphabetically. But I find a bit rude that some one added himself at
> the top, when every body was adding themselves at the bottom. I know
> that there was not rule for that.
> Those are just suggestion on my part.
> Best regards
> --
> Neville

Hey all,

I'm a big fan of voting and it's definitely seemed to improve over the
past few elections especially with better awareness and such, but I am
a bit confused by range voting.  It seems to me that range voting is
nice, but it somehow makes it hard to decide how to vote.  I tend to
vote high for those I know and believe are good choices for FAmSCo or
other committees, but I'm not sure if I should vote zero for those I
know nothing about, or if I should vote some other value.

In my opinion, a variant of range voting should limit how many votes
are available.  For instance, if six (6) candidates were available, I
should be able to only use the 1-6 values once, or not at all, but I
could use zero (0) as many times as I like.

To me, it seems that it would be cool if I could vote for or against
(more like digg style voting), but that could cause others heartache.

my $.02



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]