 |
 |
I'll also point out that the Diebolt-o-tron is used for all sorts of code4lib voting. Usually there are many options, as with conference proposals and t-shirt design. I will grant that weighted voting may seem a bit over-flexible when there are only two options, but it works quite well as a general solution. -Tod On Apr 1, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Erik Hetzner <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:01:13 -0400, > David J. Fiander wrote: >> >> So, I just voted for the Code4Lib 2014 location. There are two possible >> venues, and I was given three points to apportion however I wish. >> >> While having multiple votes, to spread around at will, makes a lot of >> sense, shouldn't the number of votes each elector is granted be limited >> to max(3, count(options)-1)? That is, when voting for a binary, I get >> one vote, when voting on a choice of three items, I get two votes, and >> for anything more than three choices, I get three votes? >> >> I mean, realistically, one could give one vote to Austin and two votes >> to Raleigh, but why bother? > > Hi David, > > You actually can vote 0-3 on any option, for as many total votes as > you like. > > The optimal strategy, assuming that you actually prefer one option to > another, is to vote 3 for the option you prefer and 0 for all others. > > To slightly change the subject, systems are a policy decision, not a > technical problem. In the case of voting for presentations (more > important to me that conference location), different voting systems > will generate a different mix of presentations. Think of the > difference between the American congress and a parliamentary system. > > The question is, does code4lib want conference presentations that are > more “first past the post” [1] or more representative of the diversity > of interests of the code4lib crowd (like a parliamentary system). The > existing system reduces to a first past the post system, which means > that the presentations which more people prefer win, rather than > presentations that a smaller group of people might feel strongly > about. > > This is a question that shouldn’t be decided by the technology; the > policy should decide the technology. A google form might work, and > certainly hand-counted emailed votes would, given the relative > smallness of the c4l community. > > Those who are interested can read more here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system > > best, Erik > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting > Sent from my free software system <http://fsf.org/>.