 |
 |
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