[Foundation-l] The average voter and voting systems (was Re: Notice of the results of the WMF Board of Trustees election)

[Erik Moeller]

On 7/13/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia at att.net> wrote:
> Instead, I would suggest keeping our present voting system in some form,
> but also making the decision faced by the voter more explicit. This can
> be done by presenting the voter with two choices for each candidate -
> Yes and No, or Approve and Disapprove if you prefer. This makes clear
> what you want the voter to tell you, and that the voter is answering
> this question independently for each candidate.

Our elections, being very open to candidates and international in
scope, will typically have many candidates voters are unfamiliar with.
Do we therefore need an "oppose" (-1) vs. "abstain" (0) vote? It could
lead to more negative campaigning ("vote against candidate X, to stop
Y from happening!") and more strategic voting ("I'll vote against
everyone except my favorite candidate"). My biggest concern, however,
is that it would disadvantage active and outspoken candidates over
inactive or silent ones, as it is virtually impossible to be active
and outspoken without offending a minority of voters, who would then
have new means to "punish" a candidate.

That said, if we do not add "-1" voting, but choose to make the voting
choices "disapprove" and "abstain" explicit, we should also make it
clear to voters that they have exactly the same effect.

One other simple method to reduce confusion about the fact that voters
can choose multiple candidates is to include an illustrated example
ballot on the voting page.
-- 
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.