Re: Disclosing election results -- a voice of caution

On Jun 3, 2014 10:25 AM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/3/2014 10:22 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2014 10:13 AM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> -  What percentage of members voted?
>> >
>> >
>> > 98 Members voted which is more than 25% of the Membership.
Personally, I am quite pleased that there was this level of interest.
While not the 90+% that I would have preferred, the 25% is still larger
than some democratic political elections in some locations.  They voted for
355 candidates, an average of 3.6 votes per Member.
>> >
>> >
>> >> -  What percentage of people voted for the maximum number of
candidates?
>> >
>> >
>> > 51 of the 98 voted for 5 candidates.
>> >
>> >
>> >>   How about only 1 candidate?
>> >
>> >
>> > 22 of the 98 voted for 1 candidate.
>> >
>> This is a great start Jeff, informative.  Is it plausible to gather
similar historical information for, say, the last 5 years so we can see
trends?
>
>
> That sounds like a great deal of work and will not yield a lot of
information.
>
> Last year's election would provide interesting data.
>

> Most recent previous elections were not contested at all or not greatly
contested.
>
Not contested + turnout in that case would be fine.  My contention with
public election stuff has been it should help increase turnout, and chaal's
that strategic voting is increasing.  It would take at least a few years
worth of tag and ab data (even basic) that either is true.

>> >
>
>