Would it be too difficult to require registration with CASAA before you vote?
only thing I'd change
only thing I'd change
CASAA | Board Nominees & Elections
- Thread starter Webby
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
My suggestion...there are already percentages lined up at the right side, find the middle one and bring the votes up to the middle. 4% minus the 1% earned equals a total of 69-15=54 votes.
Last edited:
Actually all the nominees came from within the ECF.
An open call was sent out and over 100 names were submitted. A tally of all names were collected, the 43 who had received a minimum of 25 "nods" became the nominees. (we had to cut it off somewhere)
I contacted each one and asked if they would be willing to serve if elected. 28 (sorry 29
) accepted the nominations. You didn't even have to be aware of CASAA's existance to be nominated (many in fact weren't) as anyone could nominate anyone. Some people nominated a single person, some nominated a shopping list of people with long dissertations as to why they should be nominated.
...and here we are...
Outside of putting everyones names in a hat and make it lottery drawing, restarting the votes would really screw things up. Because not everyone will go back in and vote a second time, and those who should be on the board may not make it because they lost their original votes. I'd say give the contender 20 or 30 votes by proxy to give her a competitive edge. Since the polls have been opened less than 24 hours, this would be about right had she been in the running.
I know - what I meant was that I missed the open call for nominees, so other ECF members may not have been aware of it, either.
I think if people really care about the outcome, they're paying attention and will go vote a second time.
If they don't care about the outcome and aren't even following what is going on, I'm not sure I'd want them voting anyhow!
If they don't care about the outcome and aren't even following what is going on, I'm not sure I'd want them voting anyhow!
Statistical calculations are done frequently to adjust figures when data (in this case a nominee) is entered late. A fair option is the middle percentage a person could have earned minus what they have earned in a vote. (one wouldn't add existing votes to an adjustment to make whole). What say you?
Again, I absolutely agree. I'd be more than willing to risk my placing in the vote to add Kamanjah and reset the vote count. Your point is spot on, Kristin.
Actually, you need to adjust for outliers.
With the number of entrants, to get a good statistical median, drop the 4 highest and 4 lowest vote counts, then find the median of the remainder, and use that as the added bonus to late entrants.
Personally, I agree with Kristen's take though, those who care about the process would vote a second time. Those who don't, won't.
I'd rather not remain sidetracked like this. The general consensus seems to be the statistical adjustment. Based on the current tally, that would be 54 votes. A restart may be philosophically the right thing to do, but realistically restarts are a mess.
...hanging chads anyone?
Barring anyone really wanting to make this an issue...I'll make the adjustment
Last edited:
Þornbjörg;659346 said:
Or we can take the highest number of votes minus the lowest but in each case the number added isn't a bonus added to the late entrants score... one would subtract the existing votes to award the median value as a starting point then go from there.
One assumes that a late entrant would would attain median value not median value plus existing vote.
Really, MHO is to start over, it isn't that late to do that, and most of us probably could help spread the word to re-vote here on ECF.
My wish would be to not dis-allow anyone even by default.
Also, you do have a running list of all the voters so far, correct? In case someone doesn't log back in with a different vote. Would not be correct to just change votes without full disclosure, that would also be an embarrassment to some.
NOTE: Also, is it possible to see the revised vote counts as they accumulate, I just tried to open that page with a saved bookmark but was directed back to the vote page again.
OOPS never mind, it worked just now..........cross off note
My wish would be to not dis-allow anyone even by default.
Also, you do have a running list of all the voters so far, correct? In case someone doesn't log back in with a different vote. Would not be correct to just change votes without full disclosure, that would also be an embarrassment to some.
NOTE: Also, is it possible to see the revised vote counts as they accumulate, I just tried to open that page with a saved bookmark but was directed back to the vote page again.
OOPS never mind, it worked just now..........cross off note
Last edited:
Wouldn't be practicle to restart the voting. And the reason being the votes are locked in, and there is already chat in here about "this person should be in" . Resetting the votes will sway peoples original vote and opinion away and will cause people who originally were in the run to win (or even winning) to lose potential votes because we're already starting to sway public opinion by saying "this or that person should be in". See where I'm getting at? It would turn the election from a free vote to "vote who we believe should be in there". If that be the case, what is the purpose of even having an election? In this case, Webby should assign people the position and be done with it.
Unfortunately, all we have is a list of the IP addresses. Matching them would be a nightmare. I've added the 54 votes and even though we are only 24 hours in - we are 24 hours in.
We have a whole week of the tally going up and down and I think that is plenty of time for this whole vote to flip in any direction. I will put a meta refresh on the results page and work on an RSS feed to make keeping up with the latest results less of a full time job.
- Status
