ext_3077 ([identity profile] starcat-jewel.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] redneckgaijin 2015-09-02 08:22 am (UTC)

Nitpick:
Eighth, that you defend the nominations as "playing by the rules so they weren't rigged" and attack the final outcome as vote-rigging when the vote was conducted by the SAME RULES.

This isn't true as you've phrased it. The nominations process is first-past-the-post; the top 5 vote-getters are what end up on the final ballot, which makes it easily gamed by a relatively small number of people voting in lockstep.

The votes from the final ballot, however, are tabulated by Instant Runoff Voting (aka Australian voting), in which voters rank their choices and it often takes multiple rounds of vote-counting to produce a winner. This system is much harder to game.

This year a proposal was presented at the Business Meeting to change the nominations process to something more like the voting process, but in a way that would be transparent to the people nominating. It passed, and if ratified in 2016 will go into effect the following year -- and that will be effectively the end of the puppies being able to pull this particular trick.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not on Access List)
(will be screened if not on Access List)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting