Uhh...

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:LArron
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It wouldn't be fair to do it that way, because in C7 DickTurpis's and RNS's votes had to go to other, higher ranked candidates, in C9, the higher ranked candidates can afford to transfer their unneeded votes (which would otherwise be wasted, as they are sure to win without them) to lower ranked ones, like DickTurpis and RNS. If you determine the alternates using C9 / C7, you are in essence giving more weight to certain ballots.

-- Nx / talk07:28, 9 July 2012
  1. Giving unequal weight to ballots is something happening in any voting system. The question is how to keep the inequalities as small as possible
  2. For us, STV has certain disadvantages:
    1. the number of our ballots is small in comparison with the number of seats and of candidates, and therefore the random eliminations may have a deciding influence.
    2. The result isn't so clear that the cumbersome election process would be justifiable: it takes quite some time to fill in the ballot

I'd prefer for coming elections to use a simpler system - perhaps let each voter name three candidates. This would have resulted in {AD, Blue, Ace McWicked, Dick Turpis, Ghengis Khant, Armondikov, Weaseloid} as moderators and {Nutty Roux, Waiting for Godot} as alternates.

larronsicut fur in nocte07:55, 9 July 2012
 

BTW, I run the election for two places after deleting all the seven winners from the ballots (User:LARrron/alt02 ). The result for the alternates are Dick Turpis and Reckless Noise Symphony...

larronsicut fur in nocte08:54, 9 July 2012

Again, the problem is that Dick and RNS get votes from ballots where they were placed behind one of the seven winners. By deleting the seven winners, they get these votes, but in the original calculation, these votes go to the winners. That's why it's not fair, because those votes are counted twice, essentially.

-- Nx / talk09:01, 9 July 2012