On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:45:24PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 17:15, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I am for this if we can change how we elect people (either make voting > >> mandatory, change range-voting to a more parliamentary system, and/or > >> make voting per seat versus pool). As I have said before, while I > >> would have gotten this slot if there had been one more seat > >> available.. the difference in votes for me versus the next candidate > >> (and versus the other 2 contenders) was significant. > > > > It's difficult to see how we actually do this while having multiple > > seats up for election at the same time. We don't have any concept of > > districting by which to separate seats out as distinct opportunities. > > > > It is more of my understanding of Range Voting as a method to select > seats and isn't meant to be used for a pool of seats. With a pool we > could go with something much more simpler and be as valid (vote > +1/0/-1 for a candidate and those with the most votes above 0 get in > :)). The seats is mainly for making keeping change as simple as > possible in the election system. > Wait... You mean one pool and just have votes of +1/0/-1 for everyone? If so, that's still range voting.... (believe it or not, Vote +1/0/-1 and only +1 counts is also range voting. It's distinctive enough that it has its own name, though: approval voting). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpXcettNMZLJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
