W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Form of proportional representation

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:09:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jfTXcdKaUoF=RQLfgiZDVnauZuKOgkjoR81tbhVnXExKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Henry Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> On 11/12/2012 08:58 , Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>> Le 11 déc. 2012 à 16:48, Larry Masinter a écrit :
>>
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/**2012/10/07-minutes#item02<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/10/07-minutes#item02>
>>>
>>
>> "ht: ask the AB to review the voting procedures to change them to a form
>> of proportional representation"
>>
>> What does that mean?
>> I don't know if the scribing captures what henry expressed.
>>
>
> I obviously can't speak for Henry, but I think this may have been somehow
> miscaptured because I don't really see how a typical proportional system
> could apply here (I also strongly doubt proportional systems scale down to
> as few voters as we have).
>
> What we've discussed before is the problem of tactical voting. If there's
> someone you really want to see get elected, as an AC rep you're better off
> voting for that person only and not using your other votes, as that will
> increase that candidate's chance of winning. This distorts the truthiness
> of the vote since voters may have had a preference between other candidates
> as well, but it is not being expressed.
>
> Now, mentioning voting procedures in an assembly of geeks can very easily
> degenerate into years of discussion over the relative demerits of obscure
> Condorcet variants. In order to avoid that, my proposal was that we use the
> preferential voting system already built into WBS (the W3C's balloting
> system) as "good enough" (and require that all options be filled out). It
> will never completely remove tactical voting, but it ought to decrease it
> sufficiently.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>

That sounds entirely sane to me, someone without a vote at all, as a good
starting point :)  However, in the future it would actually be nice IMO if
the public (say, anyone with a w3c account) could cast a weighted vote such
that some number of us amounts one member org vote (probably easily
calculated to prevent to chaos by the fact that the number of member orgs
and the number of w3c accounts are known quantities).

If the Web belongs to all of us, it might be nice if we had some degree of
consideration given to the collective voices of those of us who cannot
afford the poll tax :)


-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 04:09:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 December 2012 04:09:46 GMT