Congratulations to the three winners. I look forward to meeting Frieda
in Taipei.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It's a little unfortunate that 3 people missed out
on a place by less
than 40 votes. With a fairly low turnout the margin of error is quite
high, so had a different 4170 people voted we may well have had a
different result. I think this suggests that we need to work even
harder next year to increase the turnout. That said, I am very happy
with the choice (I believe I voted for 2 of the winners and the 3rd
was a very close call).
That's aninteresting observation about the three people who missed out
by less than 40 votes.
Other interesting observations:
The top vote getter did so with only 40% of the votes. IOW at least
60% of the voters disapproved of all the candidates.
There were 15540 votes on 4170 ballots; that's an average of 3.73
votes per ballot. This suggests to me that contrary to what Erik has
suggested this still retains the deficiencies of strategic voting. If
possible it would be interesting to see how the ballots were distributed
on a number of votes per ballot basis.
I agree too that there should be a limit on the number of
endorsements. The 12 minimum is fine, but the unlimited maximum created
a kind of pre-vote situation that could be used in advance to show how
much support a particular candidate might receive. While there is a
need for the endorsers to be eligible to do so,. the maximum number of
endorsers should only be as much as is needed to ensure that there will
be 12 valid endorsements. Perhaps the election committee could answer
how many endorsements usually needed to be checked before there were 12
valid ones? Were any of the nominees rejected as candidates
specifically because of ineligible endorsements.
Ec