On 09/24/13 17:44, Galen Charlton wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Paul Poulain > <paul.poul...@biblibre.com>wrote: >> well, last year way of calculating could result in the following : >> * 100 ppl voted Argentina #1 and Nigeria #2 >> * 90 ppl voted Nigeria #1 only >> * none voted Argentina #1 or (Nigeria #1 and Argentina #2) >> >> Nigeria = 90*2+50*1 = 230 points >> Argentina = 100*2 = 200 points >> => Nigeria wins ! [...] > > Thanks for clarifying. And I think that this example makes it clear that > this particular voting scheme should never be used again for conference > selection, as I can't see how such an outcome could possibly be justified > absent an explicit "none of the above" option.
Actually, I think the example makes the opposite clear. Look at the possible outcomes: If Argentina wins, 100 people go to the conference. If Nigeria wins, 190 people go to the conference. So it seems like Nigeria should win, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure that voting system was adopted in order to maximise the number of people who get the opportunity of attending a kohacon. I think there used to be an instruction not to rank venues there was no chance you would attend. Of course, it's not perfect and there may be better ways, but that's my understanding of what the points-based voting system was trying to do. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
