Don't waste your vote!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Don't waste your vote!

Søren Kiersted
I am writing to ask all of you to think carefully when you vote.

The board election is very important and many good people are running.

But it is better for Wikipedia's future to keep a bad person off than
to have the best people on.

There are three seats open. When you make your three choices if you
think only to choose the best you risk making an opening for someone
bad, so '''you must also consider who can win'''.

Look at the endorsements:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements

It is clear that only some have the standing to keep
a bad person off the board. So even if you know in your heart that
someone else is better, you should not pick them because if you do
your vote is WASTED.

If you have already voted and made the error of picking the wrong people you
can still change your vote but you must do it right away before the
election closes.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

geni
On 7/1/07, Søren Kiersted <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am writing to ask all of you to think carefully when you vote.
>
> The board election is very important and many good people are running.
>
> But it is better for Wikipedia's future to keep a bad person off than
> to have the best people on.
>
> There are three seats open. When you make your three choices if you
> think only to choose the best you risk making an opening for someone
> bad, so '''you must also consider who can win'''.
>
> Look at the endorsements:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements
>
> It is clear that only some have the standing to keep
> a bad person off the board. So even if you know in your heart that
> someone else is better, you should not pick them because if you do
> your vote is WASTED.

Your model is flawed in that is ignores the issue of placing for
future elections.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Alison M. Wheeler
In reply to this post by Søren Kiersted
On Sun, July 1, 2007 00:17, Søren Kiersted wrote:
> Look at the endorsements:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements
>
> It is clear that only some have the standing to keep
> a bad person off the board. So even if you know in your heart that
> someone else is better, you should not pick them because if you do
> your vote is WASTED.


Apart from finding much of this post objectionable, the number of people
endorsing each candidate is, in fact, irrelevant given that many editors
(myself included) were quite capable of reading the page concerned and,
having noted that there was a particular number of endorsements required
to validate a candidacy and noting that any candidates whom we supported
had already received the required number, could see no point in adding to
a 'beauty contest' there when it is the actual *votes* now that matter.

The number of supporters corralled into adding pointless endorsements just
shows who made the most noise, not who actually may have the most support
or would be the best for the future of Wikimedia and the projects.

One should always vote *for* a candidate, never against, imho.

Alison Wheeler
(writing purely personally)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Dominic-21
In reply to this post by Søren Kiersted
Søren Kiersted wrote:
> When you make your three choices if you
> [...]
>  
The election uses approval voting. You can vote for as many candidates
as you like, not just three. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting>.

Dominic


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Søren Kiersted
In reply to this post by Alison M. Wheeler
On 6/30/07, Alison Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> One should always vote *for* a candidate, never against, imho.
>
> Alison Wheeler
> (writing purely personally)

The people who write the rules do not agree with your personal view.

"Approval voting" is just a polite word for "disapproval voting". When
you do not select someone you are disapproving them and the ones with
the least disapproval win.  It is exactly equal only the name changes.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Thomas Dalton
On 01/07/07, Søren Kiersted <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/30/07, Alison Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > One should always vote *for* a candidate, never against, imho.
> >
> > Alison Wheeler
> > (writing purely personally)
>
> The people who write the rules do not agree with your personal view.
>
> "Approval voting" is just a polite word for "disapproval voting". When
> you do not select someone you are disapproving them and the ones with
> the least disapproval win.  It is exactly equal only the name changes.

Alison is talking about how one makes their choice of who to vote for,
she isn't talking about how the voting system works. Approval voting
is just a yes/no vote on each candidate and the one(s) with the most
yes's (or least no's, it is, indeed, the same thing) wins. If you
really hate one candidate, your best bet is to vote for everyone
except that candidate.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Søren Kiersted
On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Alison is talking about how one makes their choice of who to vote for,
> she isn't talking about how the voting system works. Approval voting
> is just a yes/no vote on each candidate and the one(s) with the most
> yes's (or least no's, it is, indeed, the same thing) wins. If you
> really hate one candidate, your best bet is to vote for everyone
> except that candidate.

This would only be true if you had no idea who else had a chance of
winning. Even without the pre-election we are not so foolish.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Thomas Dalton
> This would only be true if you had no idea who else had a chance of
> winning. Even without the pre-election we are not so foolish.

Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
winning, you should vote to everyone else. That way, if, without your
vote, the candidate you dislike would win by one vote, they will now
draw, regardless of who is in 2nd place. If there is candidate other
than the one you dislike that you do not vote for, and that candidate
comes in 2nd, one vote behind the candidate you dislike, then you
could have stopped them winning by voting for them and have failed in
your objective.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Søren Kiersted
On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
> winning, you should vote to everyone else. That way, if, without your

But what person has only one aim?
There are people I think are best, people I think are good, people I
think are less good, people I think don't matter, and a person I think
is bad.

If I select the only best, if they do not have a good chance to win
then it creates a chance to let the bad in. If I select all but the
bad, I risk helping the less good win.

So the most desired result comes from picking only the good who are
likely to win. If I waste my selection on unlikely options then I am
not doing all I could to keep out the bad. If I vote for everyone
except the bad I am not expressing my preference for good.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Alison is talking about how one makes their choice of who to vote for,
>
>she isn't talking about how the voting system works. Approval voting
>is just a yes/no vote on each candidate and the one(s) with the most
>yes's (or least no's, it is, indeed, the same thing) wins. If you
>really hate one candidate, your best bet is to vote for everyone
>except that candidate.
>
It's not exactly a yes/no vote.  If that were the case the option would
be between voting "yes" (=+1)if you really liked the person, voting "no"
(=-1) if you really didn't like him, or not voting at all (=0) if it you
didn't care either way about the person.  The dynamic could be quite
different.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Søren Kiersted
Søren Kiersted wrote:

>So the most desired result comes from picking only the good who are
>likely to win. If I waste my selection on unlikely options then I am
>not doing all I could to keep out the bad. If I vote for everyone
>except the bad I am not expressing my preference for good.
>
This seems to be straight from the lottery-ticket philosophy of politics.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Søren Kiersted
> But what person has only one aim?
> There are people I think are best, people I think are good, people I
> think are less good, people I think don't matter, and a person I think
> is bad.
>
> If I select the only best, if they do not have a good chance to win
> then it creates a chance to let the bad in. If I select all but the
> bad, I risk helping the less good win.
>
> So the most desired result comes from picking only the good who are
> likely to win. If I waste my selection on unlikely options then I am
> not doing all I could to keep out the bad. If I vote for everyone
> except the bad I am not expressing my preference for good.

What harm is there in voting for someone you think is good but you
don't think has any chance of winning? It doesn't stop you from being
able to vote for someone else - you can vote for as many people as you
like.

You should definitely vote for everyone you think would be good. The
only difficult bit is with the people you think would be ok. If there
is someone you think would be ok but not good, and they are the person
most likely to beat a person you think would be bad, then it might be
a good idea to vote for them in order to prevent the person you don't
like from winning (ie. lesser of two evils). So, in some
circumstances, it might be good to vote for someone you don't like
much, but there is never a reason not to vote for someone you do like.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
> winning, you should vote to everyone else.

That's what I did in the first election.  For this election, I'm not
voting.  I don't really feel comfortable supporting any of the
candidates, and one vote isn't going to change the election anyway.  I
thought about submitting a blank ballot.  Might still do that.

> That way, if, without your
> vote, the candidate you dislike would win by one vote, they will now
> draw, regardless of who is in 2nd place. If there is candidate other
> than the one you dislike that you do not vote for, and that candidate
> comes in 2nd, one vote behind the candidate you dislike, then you
> could have stopped them winning by voting for them and have failed in
> your objective.
>
One problem with that strategy is that this election isn't really a
binding election.  If two candidates really did tie for the last seat
with a lot of support, the board would probably just add an extra
seat.  Remember the last election?  Jimbo campaigned against Erik and
then after Erik won the board decided to add three seats instead of
one, effectively canceling out the election results.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Jon Harald Søby
On 7/1/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
> > winning, you should vote to everyone else.
>
> <snip>(...) and one vote isn't going to change the election anyway.
> </snip>


Yay, that's the attitude. If just everyone else realised what you have
realised, I would be GodKing of the World by now.</irony>

Everyone should use their right to vote, both on-wiki and in real life; it
is true, your vote only has a small impact, but it still has small impact.
Think about it; what if all the other people who didn't vote agreed with
you, think of the impact you could make together. (I'm not saying that
people should be coordinating their votes here, just that this is people's
one chance at influencing, and should seize it. It doesn't even cost you
anything.)

--
Jon Harald Søby
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Anthony-73
On 7/1/07, Jon Harald Søby <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/1/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
> > > winning, you should vote to everyone else.
> >
> > <snip>(...) and one vote isn't going to change the election anyway.
> > </snip>
>
>
> Yay, that's the attitude. If just everyone else realised what you have
> realised, I would be GodKing of the World by now.</irony>
>
Actually, if everyone else realised what I have realised, it'd no
longer be true.

> Everyone should use their right to vote, both on-wiki and in real life; it
> is true, your vote only has a small impact, but it still has small impact.

In a normal large election, 99.99999% of the time your vote has no
impact.  0.00001% of the time your vote has an impact.  Of course,
0.0001% of the time you die in an accident on your way to the polls.
Percentages made up, of course, but I do believe the chances of dying
on my way to the polls outweigh the chances of having my vote make a
positive impact (which is even less than the chance my vote will make
an impact at all).

Of course, Wikipedia elections aren't that large, but also aren't normal.

> Think about it; what if all the other people who didn't vote agreed with
> you, think of the impact you could make together.

OTOH, if you know someone who is going to vote in the opposite way as
you, the two of you can simply agree to both not vote, and your
non-votes cancel out (and not-voting is carbon-neutral, unlike driving
to the polls).

> (I'm not saying that
> people should be coordinating their votes here, just that this is people's
> one chance at influencing, and should seize it. It doesn't even cost you
> anything.)
>
As the "cost" of voting on a Wikipedia election is small, I do agree
with you that it doesn't hurt to vote.  I thought about casting a
blank ballot for this reason, but so far I've been too lazy to bother.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Philippe Beaudette
In reply to this post by Jon Harald Søby
You know, Jhs as Godking of the world is NOT the worst idea I've ever heard...

Philippe
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jon Harald Søby
  To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
  Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 3:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Don't waste your vote!


  On 7/1/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
  >
  > On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
  > > Not true. If your only aim is to prevent a particular candidate from
  > > winning, you should vote to everyone else.
  >
  > <snip>(...) and one vote isn't going to change the election anyway.
  > </snip>


  Yay, that's the attitude. If just everyone else realised what you have
  realised, I would be GodKing of the World by now.</irony>

  Everyone should use their right to vote, both on-wiki and in real life; it
  is true, your vote only has a small impact, but it still has small impact.
  Think about it; what if all the other people who didn't vote agreed with
  you, think of the impact you could make together. (I'm not saying that
  people should be coordinating their votes here, just that this is people's
  one chance at influencing, and should seize it. It doesn't even cost you
  anything.)

  --
  Jon Harald Søby
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
  _______________________________________________
  foundation-l mailing list
  [hidden email]
  http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

KIZU Naoko
In reply to this post by Søren Kiersted
On 7/1/07, Søren Kiersted <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I am writing to ask all of you to think carefully when you vote.

Thank you,

> The board election is very important and many good people are running.

Completely agreed.

> But it is better for Wikipedia's future to keep a bad person off than
> to have the best people on.

In my opinion it is a possible idea you may want to consider when you
choose who you will vote, in the general context, but in this
Election, your argument missed the point, I am afraid.

In the approval voting, you cannot do in the way you proposed below.
If you decide not to vote don't user:GOODCANDIDATE, it make only the
other candidates more successful - both user:BADCANDIDATE and
BETTERCANDIDATE. It doesn't help "keep a bad person off" at all.

And I fully support Jon in this thread. You should vote, since you
could make impact, even small. In this system all voters has the vote
of same weight.

I don't want to proud my effort to organize this Election, if I should
do such publicly, it were better for me to die. However I would like
strongly light up all the other people involved - both  the generous
administrators of Software in the Public Interest and Wikimedians: my
respectable colleagues, translators, informal helpers for organizing
both on meta and the local wikis, people who are willing to help
advertisements both unofficial and official, people who submit their
endorsements, people who noticed the problems to fix, shortly, people
who I am proud of belonging to the same community - Wikimedia. All of
them have helped it out to realize this Election and poured their
energy, wisdom and time.

In my humble opinion, calling for no vote is equal to calling for
waising their time. I might feel saddened, if such thing happens.

> There are three seats open. When you make your three choices if you
> think only to choose the best you risk making an opening for someone
> bad, so '''you must also consider who can win'''.
>
> Look at the endorsements:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements
>
> It is clear that only some have the standing to keep
> a bad person off the board. So even if you know in your heart that
> someone else is better, you should not pick them because if you do
> your vote is WASTED.
>
> If you have already voted and made the error of picking the wrong people you
> can still change your vote but you must do it right away before the
> election closes.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
KIZU Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't waste your vote!

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by Søren Kiersted
Søren Kiersted wrote:

> On 6/30/07, Alison Wheeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> One should always vote *for* a candidate, never against, imho.
>>
>> Alison Wheeler
>> (writing purely personally)
>>    
>
> The people who write the rules do not agree with your personal view.
>
> "Approval voting" is just a polite word for "disapproval voting". When
> you do not select someone you are disapproving them and the ones with
> the least disapproval win.  It is exactly equal only the name changes.
>  

At least one person on the Wikibooks Staff Lounge has announced a blank
ballot sheet.  I.E. they have voted for absolutely nobody, but voted
"present".  I have absolutely no idea what that means in terms of vote
totals and how that impacts the election, but it would be an interesting
sentiment to see how many do just that (in this case intentionally).  Or
those who voted for "everybody".

Approval voting can be gamed like many other voting systems, but it at
least is a consistent system that was known about ahead of time prior to
the election.  I voted a mixed ticket myself (several votes of approval
and several that I did not vote for).

-- Robert Horning
 

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l