[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 9:13 PM, inode0 <inode0 gmail com> wrote:
> 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.
I think they changed the order with alphabetical after you pointed out
last time.
Alphabetical might a nice and simple solution.

IMHO I don't have any problem with range voting, I think is a bit better
than 0/1 voting because if you don't know the candidate you can give him
a vote based on what you read. With the range voting you have more
choice based on your feeling.

For the low participation I would like to hear the voice of someone who
didn't vote (don't be shy, please), my opinion is lazyness.


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