spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Initial Voting Procedures (updated 23:15pm Nov 14 2004)

2004-11-16 17:59:38
william(at)elan.net [william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net] wrote:
I think its best that right now we resolve this by saying that
"candidates are strongly encoraged not to vote for themeselves" and
hopefully everyone running understands that if we see that they did it
(and especially if it made a difference) that this would be looked upon
very negatively by majority of spf community.

First the argument was a purely scientific one: that votes for oneself
would be "wasted" because they would have no impact on the election result
(which of course cannot be taken for granted, but at least that was given
as the rationale).

Now you want to denounce voting for oneself on pseudo-moral grounds?
Sorry, I don't buy it.  But I agree that it should be allowed, and then
voters may judge it for themselves.  That's okay with me. :-)

There is one other issue that we need to decide on - the case when two
or more people get the same number of votes and one of more of those
would qualify for the council but not all. Typically this is resolved
by coin toss but we cant really do that and I would suggest that the
person(s) who first accepted nomination get to be on the council (i.e.
as having slightly more interest in serving and slightly more active).
Please reply if have strong opinion against doing it this way and
preference for something else.

"Typically this is resolved by coin toss"?  Ok, at least you did not say
"usually". ;-)

Also, being the first to accept nomination hardly implies higher
dedication.  You know, people (including the candidates) actually do have
a life outside this mailing list.  The tie breaking method you are
suggesting is weird, I'd even prefer random selection over it. ;-)

Seriously, if there's a tie, let the candidate who got the most votes
break it.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>