Scratch

sparks · 2011-07-20 16:35:18

There are currently two well-liked voting systems used both here and pretty much everywhere.

By far the most common is where each user gets one vote which they may place with a candidate.

In my opinion, this system is old, tested and elegant. However, it can mean a tough call if you wish to lend your support to more than one candidate.

Secondly, a system where each user can rank all the candidates in order of preference.

This system is used to elect the government in a few countries in the world, so it's workings are sound. It works well if you have a set idea about preference but falls down if you really don't want one or more candidates to get through as you would be forced to give them at least one or two votes.

I can think of a third voting system for candidate selection that I would love to hear feedback for. It's the system we use currently for supporting Scratch 2.0 ideas. This is where each user is given a set number of votes, say 10 votes. They may then distribute those votes among the candidates to the level they see fit.

Users can fully support one candidate by giving them all their votes, support two by giving half each and soforth. They do not have to give any votes to any candidates they do not like for the position.

What are people's thoughts on this third system, or can anyone suggest another voting system that could be used in future votes?

Chrischb · 2011-07-20 22:01:18

I like the second system most actually... tongue I just don't know how to explain my reasoning hmm *goes off to think about it*

jji7skyline · 2011-07-20 22:04:05

I like the 3rd system. Its actually called the rated voting system (as opposed to ranked) and I think its good because you can express your opinion best smile

Lucario621 · 2011-07-20 22:35:22

I see how the 3rd system works, however I think it can misrepresent your opinion. After all, most people are probably going to give all 10 votes to one candidate. Not everybody, but most.

Now how does it represent your opinion? Well lets say there are 4 candidates. Candidate A you like very much. Candidate B has some similar interests/characteristics you like, however there are some things you disagree with. Candidate C seems like a bad choice to you, and Candidate D you really dislike, as you've had bad experiences with them in the past.

Now with the third system You will probably give all of your votes to Candidate A, because you want to give him as much support and chance of winning as possible. However there is a flaw -- it makes you assume that you dislike Candidates B, C, and D equally as much. With the second system, you are forced to rank them, so it generally works out better.

Now that I'm thinking of actually suggesting a fourth system, slightly different from the second. Rather than giving 4 votes to Candidate A, 3 votes to Candidate B, 2 votes to Candidate C and 1 vote to Candidate D, assuming you rank them A, B, C, D, you give one vote to candidate A, and all of the votes are counted up, however if your candidate didn't win, then your votes can be transferred to the second best candidate that you selected, and so on forth.

You can see a video about it here -- very easy to understand hopefully, as it takes place in an imaginary animal kingdom smile .

veggieman001 · 2011-07-20 22:38:58

I like the second one the best. It makes the most sense to me.

Chrischb · 2011-07-20 23:22:26

Lucario621 wrote:
I see how the 3rd system works, however I think it can misrepresent your opinion. After all, most people are probably going to give all 10 votes to one candidate. Not everybody, but most.

Now how does it represent your opinion? Well lets say there are 4 candidates. Candidate A you like very much. Candidate B has some similar interests/characteristics you like, however there are some things you disagree with. Candidate C seems like a bad choice to you, and Candidate D you really dislike, as you've had bad experiences with them in the past.

Now with the third system You will probably give all of your votes to Candidate A, because you want to give him as much support and chance of winning as possible. However there is a flaw -- it makes you assume that you dislike Candidates B, C, and D equally as much. With the second system, you are forced to rank them, so it generally works out better.

Now that I'm thinking of actually suggesting a fourth system, slightly different from the second. Rather than giving 4 votes to Candidate A, 3 votes to Candidate B, 2 votes to Candidate C and 1 vote to Candidate D, assuming you rank them A, B, C, D, you give one vote to candidate A, and all of the votes are counted up, however if your candidate didn't win, then your votes can be transferred to the second best candidate that you selected, and so on forth.

You can see a video about it here -- very easy to understand hopefully, as it takes place in an imaginary animal kingdom .

Bless you, you just saved me a bunch of typing time tongue

scimonster · 2011-07-21 00:56:12

I see how the third could work, but as Lucario pointed out, it also might not work. hmm
Maybe if we had a limit on how many, such as 5.

sparks · 2011-07-21 06:29:33

Lucario621 wrote:
I see how the 3rd system works, however I think it can misrepresent your opinion. After all, most people are probably going to give all 10 votes to one candidate. Not everybody, but most.

Now how does it represent your opinion? Well lets say there are 4 candidates. Candidate A you like very much. Candidate B has some similar interests/characteristics you like, however there are some things you disagree with. Candidate C seems like a bad choice to you, and Candidate D you really dislike, as you've had bad experiences with them in the past.

Now with the third system You will probably give all of your votes to Candidate A, because you want to give him as much support and chance of winning as possible. However there is a flaw -- it makes you assume that you dislike Candidates B, C, and D equally as much. With the second system, you are forced to rank them, so it generally works out better.

Now that I'm thinking of actually suggesting a fourth system, slightly different from the second. Rather than giving 4 votes to Candidate A, 3 votes to Candidate B, 2 votes to Candidate C and 1 vote to Candidate D, assuming you rank them A, B, C, D, you give one vote to candidate A, and all of the votes are counted up, however if your candidate didn't win, then your votes can be transferred to the second best candidate that you selected, and so on forth.

You can see a video about it here -- very easy to understand hopefully, as it takes place in an imaginary animal kingdom .

It was also suggested for use in the not-so-imaginary United kingdom a few months ago. The flaw with your fourth suggestion for a ranked voting system is tactical voting. So for example, you really want candidate A to win and so you rank A as your first choice. B is second most likely to win, in your opinion, so to stop B getting lots of votes you vote for D, who you think is least likely to win as that way you are not supporting B any more than necessary. This works fine if one or two people do it, but a lot of people cotton on that they can "waste" their votes on people unlikely to win in order to give their chosen candidate the best chance of winning which of course means that D, the least likely to win will suddenly have everyone's second vote and it all goes to pot...

Lucario621 · 2011-07-21 08:15:48

I see what you mean sparks. But there really isn't any way to prevent tactical voting, to my knowledge. I still personally prefer method two. I think there are actually versions of it where you rank them until you want to stop ranking. So if there were five candidates for example, you could just rank your favorite 3. This eliminates the problem you have in the first post. So in our situation, you could rank them in order, or put some in a no preference category. What do you think?

scratchisthebest · 2011-07-21 09:29:24

Hmmm... Ranked Pairs could work, but it's confusing. You should look at the Wikipedia entry for "Ranked Pairs".

sparks · 2011-07-21 11:46:10

ranking as many of the contestants as you want and not ranking those you don't want at all does sound like the best way to reduce tactical voting whilst allowing voters to share their support across two or more contestants...

kayakalp · 2011-07-22 04:18:39

Hello everyone.

scimonster · 2011-07-22 04:30:31

kayakalp wrote:
Hello everyone.

Welcome, kayakalp.
It's nice that you want to introduce yourself to the community, but it's better to do that in the New Scratch Members forum. wink

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2011-07-20 16:35:18

Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#2 2011-07-20 22:01:18

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#3 2011-07-20 22:04:05

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#4 2011-07-20 22:35:22

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#5 2011-07-20 22:38:58

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#6 2011-07-20 23:22:26

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

Lucario621 wrote:

#7 2011-07-21 00:56:12

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#8 2011-07-21 06:29:33

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

Lucario621 wrote:

#9 2011-07-21 08:15:48

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#10 2011-07-21 09:29:24

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#11 2011-07-21 11:46:10

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#12 2011-07-22 04:18:39

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

#13 2011-07-22 04:30:31

Re: Future voting systems for choosing moderators and the like

kayakalp wrote:

Board footer