On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Recentist? Ignoring the, ahem, fanciful language
you've chosen, I'd like
throw my support behind the voting qualifications wholeheartedly.
For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license
doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life. This isn't just
about what will "skew the results" with ballot stuffing. It's about giving
suffrage to people who can make an informed decision that will positively
affect the work of the community by getting adequate representation on the
You have only said that you support the current plan, without making an
argument as to why it is beneficial. There is no information in the current
heuristic that indicates that the editor is more or less familiar with the
candidates than an editor who does not. Given that it is an international
election it is quite likely the case that many of the people who are
qualified to vote are not familiar with the majority of the candidates and
they will have to read up on them. I argued in my original post that the
heuristic does not distinguish between the capability of people that it
captures and people it does not to make an informed and valid ranking
decision about the candidates. To reiterate, you simply said you agree with
the current plan without arguing that this is false.
The second sentence should read: There is no information in the current
heuristic that indicates that editors who are allowed to vote are more or
less familiar with the candidates than those who are not.