Whether voters trust it or not has nothing to do with whether it is actually the best voting method.
The fact that you say that with a straight face shows that You Don't Get It.
Whether the voters have confidence in the election system has a huge amount to do whether something is best. Let us presume that for a moment you were suddenly the King of WSFS and you imposed your voting system upon us. I expect that voter turnout -- already less than I would like to see -- would drop precipitously, and the SF community would almost certainly lose faith in the legitimacy of the results.
WSFS currently has a moderately-complicated election system, but it's been around long enough with few enough changes, and enough people in the field whose opinions matter agree with using it, that the results are widely perceived as legitimate. (Yes, anyone who thinks a system is Evil if it doesn't return his/her first preference isn't going to be convinced. I'm mainly interested in reasonable objections, not sour grapes.)
Voters can even abstain from casting votes for unknown options...
They can do that already. Indeed, we encourage people not to vote lower preferences if they have no preference. (This isn't the Australian parliament. On principle I object to any system that requires you to vote, because IMO the right to vote includes the right to abstain).
On the Site Selection ballot (not the Hugos), there is even an explicit "No Preference" selection, and any choices numbered after No Preference are ignored.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-24 05:53 am (UTC)Whether the voters have confidence in the election system has a huge amount to do whether something is best. Let us presume that for a moment you were suddenly the King of WSFS and you imposed your voting system upon us. I expect that voter turnout -- already less than I would like to see -- would drop precipitously, and the SF community would almost certainly lose faith in the legitimacy of the results.
WSFS currently has a moderately-complicated election system, but it's been around long enough with few enough changes, and enough people in the field whose opinions matter agree with using it, that the results are widely perceived as legitimate. (Yes, anyone who thinks a system is Evil if it doesn't return his/her first preference isn't going to be convinced. I'm mainly interested in reasonable objections, not sour grapes.)
They can do that already. Indeed, we encourage people not to vote lower preferences if they have no preference. (This isn't the Australian parliament. On principle I object to any system that requires you to vote, because IMO the right to vote includes the right to abstain).
On the Site Selection ballot (not the Hugos), there is even an explicit "No Preference" selection, and any choices numbered after No Preference are ignored.