Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
Verner: There are two problems with this: 1) The process of how to vote was agreed in Lisbon, so unless 2/3 of the ALSes intervene to reverse that decision, there is no grounds to reconsider, more than six weeks after the event. 2) Nothing would prevent you from noting preferences for only one, or two, out of the three, and not setting a second or a third preference. So, the effect you might achieve would be the same. On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann@datenschutzverein.de> wrote:
Hello Nick,
there is a difference if all voters have two possible votes or if the voters have to rank all three candidates. If I have two possible votes, I can also vote only for one candidate and let my secend vote unused.
Kind Regards,
Werner
Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
Verner, and all:
Could we please, instead of trying to find things to object to, try and find things to agree on.
To repeat: there is no difference in the outcome whether one ranks three candidates, or whether you dispose of two individual votes for a candidate of three.
HOWEVER: insisting on changing everything because one or two individuals want to change what was agreed by a much larger group of ALSes in Lisbon is basically the same as suggesting that any one ALS can veto any decision reached by a much larger group of ALSes.
This would result in nothing ever being achieved.
On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann@datenschutzverein.de> wrote:
Hello,
my first question: "noon UTC" is 1 pm GMT?
For the ALAC-Seats the rankingsystems makes for me no sense and it seems to be not democratical for such a few seats to elecect. Therefor we should use for the election of the ALAC-Seats tweo possible Votes for each voter.
Greatings,
Werner
Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
#################################################### Vorratsdatenspeicherung? Nein Danke! - Noch ist es nicht zu spät: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de ####################################################
--
Dipl. Inform. Werner Hülsmann Vorstandsmitglied der Deutschen Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. Obere Laube 48 - D-78462 Konstanz Tel.: 07531 / 365905-6 Mobil: 0179 / 46 86 484 E-Mail: huelsmann@datenschutzverein.dehttp://www.datenschutzverein.de
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Hello Nick, Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
Verner:
Don't you have an "W" on your PC? :-)
There are two problems with this:
1) The process of how to vote was agreed in Lisbon, I understood you, that this agreement was made for the election of the EURALA Board and not for the ALAC seats 2) Nothing would prevent you from noting preferences for only one, or two, out of the three, and not setting a second or a third preference. So, the effect you might achieve would be the same. Sorry, but in the WIKI you have written: "The ballot will work as follows: 1. Each voter will rank, in order of preference, ALL the ALAC candidates."
And the word "ALL" is in Capital Letters. Also would be a vote not legal if there is only one ore two preferences! Kind Regards, Werner #################################################### Vorratsdatenspeicherung? Nein Danke! - Noch ist es nicht zu spät: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de #################################################### -- Dipl. Inform. Werner Hülsmann Vorstandsmitglied der Deutschen Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. Obere Laube 48 - D-78462 Konstanz Tel.: 07531 / 365905-6 Mobil: 0179 / 46 86 484 E-Mail: huelsmann@datenschutzverein.dehttp://www.datenschutzverein.de
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
2) Nothing would prevent you from noting preferences for only one, or two, out of the three, and not setting a second or a third preference. So, the effect you might achieve would be the same.
First, let me state that I do not like this voting system at all. However, this was what was adopted in Lisbon by a meeting where most ALSes were present, including Christoph and Wolfgang (so not just ISOC chapters), so I think that, for the sake of closing this painful process which reminds me of the worst days of icannatlarge.com, we'd better live with it for the time being. However, and this was discussed in Lisbon, there is a requirement that you rank ALL candidates. This is because, with this system, the best candidates are the ones whose sum of rankings is the lowest. So for example in this case: Voter 1: 1. Candidate A, 2. Candidate B, 3. Candidate C Voter 2: 1. Candidate B, 2. Candidate C, 3. Candidate A the final result would be: 1. Candidate B = 3 points 2. Candidate A = 4 points 3. Candidate C = 5 points However, if Voter 2 did not rank Candidate A (possibly because he/she thinks that A is a really bad person), and only stated two preferences, A would not get points and so the result would be: 1. Candidate A = 1 point 2. Candidate B = 4 points 3. Candidate C = 5 points which is the exact opposite of what Voter 2 would have liked to get. This is why there is the need to rank all candidates, none excluded... so that the ones you really don't like get a lot of points from you and sink down the list :-) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
That's how you are doing it? Cause I would have thought that it worked more like this - 1st place gets most points, 2nd place less points, 3rd place fewest points. If you do it the way you show here, if you had 5 candidates, and 2 positions, it would be really difficult. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:18 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: euro-als@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
2) Nothing would prevent you from noting preferences for only one, or two, out of the three, and not setting a second or a third preference. So, the effect you might achieve would be the same.
First, let me state that I do not like this voting system at all. However, this was what was adopted in Lisbon by a meeting where most ALSes were present, including Christoph and Wolfgang (so not just ISOC chapters), so I think that, for the sake of closing this painful process which reminds me of the worst days of icannatlarge.com, we'd better live with it for the time being. However, and this was discussed in Lisbon, there is a requirement that you rank ALL candidates. This is because, with this system, the best candidates are the ones whose sum of rankings is the lowest. So for example in this case: Voter 1: 1. Candidate A, 2. Candidate B, 3. Candidate C Voter 2: 1. Candidate B, 2. Candidate C, 3. Candidate A the final result would be: 1. Candidate B = 3 points 2. Candidate A = 4 points 3. Candidate C = 5 points However, if Voter 2 did not rank Candidate A (possibly because he/she thinks that A is a really bad person), and only stated two preferences, A would not get points and so the result would be: 1. Candidate A = 1 point 2. Candidate B = 4 points 3. Candidate C = 5 points which is the exact opposite of what Voter 2 would have liked to get. This is why there is the need to rank all candidates, none excluded... so that the ones you really don't like get a lot of points from you and sink down the list :-) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/797 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 5:10 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/797 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 5:10 PM
participants (4)
-
"W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.)" -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Vittorio Bertola