RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Election booth/Archive1

If I place a person several times in the top few slots, does that do anything? I think I understand this system there're just a few things I'm unsure of. thanks--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It makes it reject the vote and you have to try again. You can only vote for a given person once. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks. if I don't fill out all the tiers, will I be losing out on influence? There are some people I really don't want to be mods. Would putting them all the way down hurt or help them?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't skip a tier or you will likely lose influence. Placing someone anywhere is a vote for them, though the lower the tier the less likely it will ever be used. You only get one vote, but if the person is all ready elected it moves to your next top choice and on down it goes. If you do not want someone a mod its better to not vote for them at all. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your patience in explaining this to me. I really appreciate it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So we do only get one vote each for all 7 positions, and our top vote is the only one likely to count? Damn, this is exactly how I did not want this to work. DickTurpis (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, your preferences will count. It's unlikely that the primary votes will split evenly into 7 neat quotas. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Two questions: 1. Are votes for low-ranking candidates (e.g. those who only receive a handful of votes & so are nowhere near being elected) also transferred, as in some STV systems? 2. In the event of an elected moderator declining the role or being unavailable, will the vote be recounted with votes for them being transferred, or would there need to be a new election? Thanks. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In Aus when there is a senate vacancy the governor of that state replaces them, but I have always like the idea of removing the candidates and recounting the votes. - π 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely clear on how this works (possibly because there are apparently several different ways of doing it), at least in cases like this with multiple winners. It seems to me someone who is the second choice of 100% of the voters not be a potential winner because they have recieved 0 first place votes, is that correct? DickTurpis (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Very unlikely but technically not impossibly. If seven candidates received an exactly equal number of first choice votes, and the rest of the candidates received fewer first choice votes, then I guess no second choice votes would be counted at all (unless, as I asked above, votes for stragglers are discounted & transferred). But anyway the odds against that situation are pretty high. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"You only get one vote, but if the person is all ready elected it moves to your next top choice and on down it goes" - If I understand this correctly then the order in which votes are counted can effect the outcome. That can't be good. I admit I was thinking of the Oz Lower House system - but hadn't given much thought as to how that translates to multiple positions. Our Upper House does use the STV system - and would seem to me to suffer from the same shortcoming as here except for the overwhelming use of "above the line" voting whereby electors essentially allow their 1st preference party/group to allocate the rest of their preferences. In our Lower House system the least popular candidate is eliminated and the votes that were for them are re-distributed based on 2nd preference. Then the 2nd least popular candidate is eliminated and their 2nd preferences (and the least popular candidate's 3rd preferences where their 2nd preference is the 2nd least popular) are allocated. Allocating votes is "intensive" but the system works on a basis of "well if you can't have that one, who else would you have" hopefully arriving at the candidate most preferred by most electors. In this election, such a process could require tracking and allocating up to 13 preference rounds so might well not be suitable, but I still balk at the idea that late voters (or at least those whose votes are counted later) have more influence in their lower preferences than in their higher preferences. It's too late now, but I like a simple weighted voting system, preferences 1 to 20 are given weightings of 20 to 1 respectively. The products of votes and weights are summed, then ranked. I think the merits of electoral systems are only slightly less contentious than politics itself. Tricksy (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Dick, no. After the first person has passes the threshold (1/7 of the total votes) their votes are redistributed proportionally based on the second preference. So the hypothetical 100% second place candidate would receive all of the first elected persons votes and be elected. - π 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The canidates who have "won" have their surplus votes redistributed proportionally to the 2nd choice of those who voted for thew winne, order of counting doesn't effect influence. Lowest vote canidates are eliminated and votes redistrubted if no canidate reaches quota in a round. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you're playing Tudor Court Rules. Silver Sloth (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the eligibility requirements? Thank you.--. 00:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

3 months and 75 edits Тай^{говорить} 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Missed eligibility by one week... Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This does really open the door to sockpuppetry, but I guess there's no easy way around that. DickTurpis (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Socal, you might still be able to vote if you become eligible before the polls close. -- Nx / talk 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Boo to the eligibility criteria, now I won't get to cast my -considerable- weight behind the winning candidates. Tielec01 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)