Re: Disclosing election results -- a voice of caution

On 6/3/2014 10:47 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2014 10:25 AM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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.
>

I don't think that the usage of strategic voting in an election which 
has 5 candidates for 5 positions, or 6 candidates for 5 positions is 
correlated to the usage of strategic voting in an election which has 12 
candidates for 5 positions.

> >> >
> >
> >
>