kevin_standlee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2007-01-04 12:19 pm
kevin_standlee) wrote2007-01-04 12:19 pm
Entry tags:
Range Voting
The folks advocating Range Voting contacted WSFS (actually, the WSFS webmaster, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."
I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.
WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.
Re: I'm a geek
As an aside, what you think that I should want and what I think I should want are not necessarily intersecting sets. (For that matter, who on Earth are you to say what I "should" want?)
Re: I'm a geek
If you don't want to get Range Voting, then clearly you don't care that much who wins, so you shouldn't even vote anyway. Or you should just vote by picking a candidate's name out of a hat. That's effectively what you are getting by using IRV instead of Range Voting - a huge amount of random deviation from ideal utility.
Re: I'm a geek
I don't give a rats ass for range voting, really. I make my Hugo choices. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. The underwhelming outcry against the winners from the people at the convention shows that A) the system is not, in the eyes of fandom, broken and B) generally produces results along the lines of what people want.
f you don't want to get Range Voting, then clearly you don't care that much who wins, so you shouldn't even vote anyway.
You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you might, just MIGHT, have some socially redeeming characteristics somewhere in your psyche.
You don't.
You have ceased to be entertainly or informing and have moved into the actively insulting. As such, you are not worth time, electrons or oxygen. Go thou and find a life somewhere. You sorely need one.
No go away or I shall taunt you a second time.