Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Grimoire Lead Results

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Remko van der Vossen <wich AT yuugen.jp>
  • To: Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Grimoire Lead Results
  • Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:29:56 +0100

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:52:06AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> On Mar 23, Remko van der Vossen [wich AT yuugen.jp] wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:33:27AM -0500, David Kowis wrote:
> > > On 03/23/2011 06:35 AM, flux wrote:
> > > > Remko van der Vossen (wich AT yuugen.jp) wrote [11.03.23 16:44]:
> > > >> Euh... Is it me or do I count more hashes than voters...
> > > >>
> > > >> Remko.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that's because votes were hashed separately for each
> > > > candidate, so if you voted for both (in whatever order) you would have
> > > > gotten 2 hashes as your "receipt". Unless I'm misunderstanding
> > > > something...
> > > >
> > >
> > > At least one person voted for both in a specified order, so yeah, that's
> > > why they don't line up.
> >
> > How is this order reflected in the results then? Currently it seems that
> > any candidate on the ordered list simply gets a +1, so then what's the
> > point of the order?
>
> Because candidates only get the +1 in order. So if you vote:
>
> 1: Candidate A
> 2: Candidate B
>
> Then on the first tally round, Candidate A gets +1 from you, Candidate B
> gets nothing. If at the end of the first tally round no candidate has a
> majority of votes cast, then the lowest vote getter is dropped and votes
> are tallied again. If Candidate A was dropped, then your vote for
> Candidate B would come into play.
>
> Granted the results could stand to be reported in more detail, the ordering
> is relevant and should be reflected as first choices, second choices,
> etc...

This would mean that the results posted should be a first tally and
thus that there should be only one +1 per voter, am I wrong?

> > Btw, you say at least one, if there are more than one then there should
> > also be abstains, should they not also be counted? And if there aren't
> > any then there should be exactly one ordered list, no?
>
> A true abstain is someone who didn't vote for any of the choices. "At
> least one" person voting for both candidates in order does not imply any
> abstentions.

That's now what I said, what I said was that, at least two people voting
for both candidates, under the condition that both candidates would get
a +1, would mean at least one abstain. Therefore there should be exactly
one candidate with an ordered vote for both candidates, as the results
listed no abstain votes.

Remko.

Attachment: pgpYOSENjMlxO.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page