W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2014

Case for/data about elections

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 10:26:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jd_Xbjqhw=sUOQxqk6_C6NC42ZxnPWpXjJ57nOc5=0tAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Spinning off a new thread in order to keep the other about actually voting
on votes.

To reiterate in order to pose my questions:  I agree there are potential
biases in the first system, it has serious flaws.  I entirely support the
idea that it is worth discussing and probably fixing.  BUT - I am very
dubious that THESE are the biases that have hurt things thus far and
relatively confident that other biases (apathy/lack of participation or
knowledge, who actually does the voting, etc) actually have had a big
impact AND changing the voting system does not address these.  My
assertions are easily validated with data.

So my question is:  Is there data to actually support the assertion that
this has affected outcomes? On several occasions now i have heard people
cite recent elections.  The fact that candidates and folks like myself
actively made an effort to turn out the vote and collaborated and discussed
importance out in the open on issues is a perfectly rational explanation,
but there is adamant insistence it seems that somehow the system is rigged
or something.  Has there been a questionnaire to membership about whether
they strategically voted or any effort to play it out another way that has
shown otherwise?  If so, I'd like to see this data.  If not, let's please
stop holding this up as an example if the data doesn't support it.  It's
disheartening to people like myself who really care and all it's
accomplishing is creating more "why bother" sentiment.

Again, in principle, theoretically - i fully support ranked voting.  I'd,
love to see coordination with a linked, unofficial poll for studying
impact, etc.  I'd also love high level preference data to be public - it's
useful for making sure membership is able to express itself and groups and
W3C are addressing appropriately.
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2014 14:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC