2007/7/1, Søren Kiersted <wisewisard(a)googlemail.com>om>: No, that's incorrect. Read the voting method before you make such statements. Simply speaking, the number of votes for each candidate is counted. Suppose you want to get A in and keep B out. If you vote just for A, A gets 1 vote from you, and B gets 0. If you vote for everyone but B, it's exactly the same. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Voting for people who have little to no chance of winning is a lost chance to keep off the person you know is bad, a wasted vote. People here seem to think that each person gets multiple votes, but that is not true. It would not be fair. You get one vote, and it says so on the voting page that only one vote is allowed per person no matter how many projects you are on. Right now people who like five people, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE but like ONE somewhat more than FOUR or FIVE will select only ONE, TWO and THREE so that their vote is not diluted with the result of FOUR being selected while ONE loses. But this thinking is WRONG. If ONE has little chance of winning, and SIX is the bad person, their vote may cause SIX to win. So instead they should look at the endorsements page and only vote for people who are good and who are likely to win. The omission of ONE will hurt no one if he is not likely to win, even if you know he is best. That is why we had the pre-election in the first place.

On 6/30/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think you misunderstand it. You can go to the page and vote as many times as you want, only your most recent counts. Your earlier vote is stricken.

On 01/07/07, Søren Kiersted <wisewisard(a)googlemail.com> wrote: (found it) "***___You may vote for as many candidates as you wish.____*** The three candidates with the most votes will be declared the winners. In the event of a tie, a run-off election will be held." (emphasis mine)

On 01/07/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: where the hell is the vote link anyway? i've looked and can't find one at all o.O

Søren Kiersted wrote: What pre-election? Ec

Søren Kiersted wrote: In no way should that be viewed as a kind of pre-election. If only 12 endorsements are required, that's where it should stop. It should not be a place for any candidate's supporters to show their adherence to the herd instinct. Ec

Søren Kiersted wrote: I'll reply to this post since it's the most obviously wrong of Søren's posts without being confusing. Votes are not diluted. I could invent a fictional voting method where you were right, where voting for A, B, C and D gave 1/4 of a point to each, and voting for A alone gave a whole 1 point to A. But that's not how it is. Voting for A, B, C and D gives one whole point to each of them. Voting for A alone gives one point to A. I can say this with authority because I wrote the voting and tallying software that we are using. So there is nothing harmful in voting for a candidate that you approve of, but believe has no chance of winning. As the Wikipedia article will tell you: "The theoretically optimal tactic is to vote for those candidates whom you prefer to the expected outcome of the election (the average utility of the candidates weighted by their probabilities of victory)." So if you think evil B will win (i.e. B is the expected outcome), and you would prefer anyone other than B, then you should vote for everyone except B. -- Tim Starling