- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:26:34 +0100
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:11:42 +0100, Charles McCathie Nevile
<chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
BTW relevant part of the process document:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AB-TAG-elections
> ===Tactical voting vs Desired outcomes
> The current system, with multiple votes of equal weight, strongly
> rewards tactical voting for a single candidate (although for example the
> current TAG election is for four, and AB elections are for four or five).
>
> This puts the voters in a dilemma - do they vote tactically to ensure
> their most desired candidate has the best chance, or do they vote
> according to more general preferences and hope they are in line with
> everyone else so the result is reasonable.
One reason I think this is a problem is because I am faced with the
dilemma, and repeatedly choose between two not very good alternative
voting strategies.
Almost inevitably I end up voting for the single candidate I most want to
win. This is an all-or-nothing strategy, and means a lot of my intention
is completely lost.
> A couple of alternatives have been proposed - either using W3C's current
> WBS system (essentially ranking all candidates in preference order, I
> don't know the details of the algorithm used from there), or "a system
> of optional preferential voting" (there are plenty to choose from, each
> with slight differences).
I prefer optional preferential systems. But I would take almost anything
as a major improvement on the existing system.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 11:27:05 UTC