On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Eoghan Glynn <egl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > The low (and dropping) level of turnout is worrying, particularly in > > light of that analysis showing the proportion of drive-by contributors > > is relatively static, but it is always going to be hard to discern the > > motives of people who didn't vote from the single bit of data we have on > > them. > > > > There is, however, another metric that we can pull from the actual > > voting data: the number of candidates actually ranked by each voter: > > > > Candidates > > ranked Frequency > > > > 0 8 2% > > 1 17 3% > > 2 24 5% > > 3 20 4% > > 4 31 6% > > 5 36 7% > > 6 68 13% > > 7 39 8% > > 8 17 3% > > 9 9 2% > > 10 21 4% > > 11 - - > > 12 216 43% > > > > (Note that it isn't possible to rank exactly n-1 candidates.) > > > > So even amongst the group of people who were engaged enough to vote, > > fewer than half ranked all of the candidates. A couple of hypotheses > > spring to mind: > > > > 1) People don't understand the voting system. > > > > Under Condorcet, there is no such thing as tactical voting by an > > individual. So to the extent that these figures might reflect deliberate > > 'tactical' voting, it means people don't understand Condorcet. The size > > of the spike at 6 (the number of positions available - the same spike > > appeared at 7 in the previous election) strongly suggests that lack of > > understanding of the voting system is at least part of the story. The > > good news is that this problem is eminently addressable. > > Addressable by educating the voters on the subtleties of Condorcet, or > by switching to another model such as the single-transferable vote? > > I can see the attractions of Condorcet, in particular it tends to favor > consensus over factional candidates. Which could be seen as A Good Thing. > > But in our case, seems to me, we're doubling down on consensus. > > By combining Condorcet with staggered terms and no term limits, seems > we're favoring both consensus in general and the tendency to return the > *same* consensus candidates. (No criticism of the individual candidates > intended, just the sameness) > > STV on the other hand combined with simultaneous terms, is actually > used in the real world[1] and has the advantage of ensuring factions > get some proportional representation and hence don't feel excluded > or disenfranchised. > > +1 to this, with a term limit. -Angus > Just a thought ... given that we're in the mood, as a community, to > consider radical structural reforms. > > Cheers, > Eoghan > > [1] so at least would be familiar to the large block of Irish and > Australian voters ... though some centenarian citizens of > Marquette, Michigan, may be a tad more comfortable with Condorcet ;) > > > > 2) People aren't familiar with the candidates > > > > This is the one that worries me - it looks a lot like most voters are > > choosing not to rank many of the candidates because they don't feel they > > know enough about them to have an opinion. It seems to me that the TC > > has failed to engage the community enough on the issues of the day to > > move beyond elections as a simple name-recognition contest. (Kind of > > like how I imagine it is when you have to vote for your local > > dog-catcher here in the US. I have to imagine because they don't let me > > vote.) It gets worse, because the less the TC tries to engage the > > community on the issues and the less it attempts to actually lead (as > > opposed to just considering checklists and voting to ask for more time > > to consider checklists), the more entrenched the current revolving-door > > membership becomes. So every election serves to reinforce the TC > > members' perception that everything is going great, and also to > > reinforce the perception of those whose views are not represented that > > the TC is an echo chamber from which their views are more or less > > structurally excluded. That's a much harder problem to address. > > > > cheers, > > Zane. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Eoghan > > > > > >> So the proportion of single-patch committers is creeping up slowly, > but > > >> not at a rate that would account for the decline in voter turnout. > > >> > > >> And since we've no way of knowing if voting patterns among the > > >> single-patch > > >> committers differs in any way from the norm, these data don't tell us > > >> much. > > >> > > >> If we're serious about improving participation rates, then I think we > > >> should consider factors what would tend to drive interest levels and > > >> excitement around election time. My own suspicion is that open races > > >> where the outcome is in doubt are more likely to garner attention from > > >> voters, than contests that feel like a foregone conclusion. That would > > >> suggest un-staggering the terms as a first step. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Eoghan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
