On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 12:30 AM Victoria Doronina <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pete, > > I live in Europe and am not familiar with the US rules. In the UK, spoilt > ballots, equivalent to the neutral vote, are counted in the tally. > I don't follow your connection between a spoilt ballot and a neutral vote, to me these seem to be unrelated concepts. One has to do with the technical condition of the ballot at the time when counted, while the other reflects the intent of the voter. The UK system also does not appear to work the way you describe. For the UK referendum we all know best (Brexit), the percentage reported on the English Wikipedia article (51.89%) aligns exactly with the result of this formula: Leave / (Leave + Remain) (the same formula used for the charter vote, and in Oregon elections). The percentage it differs (51.85%) from Leave / (Leave + Remain + spoilt) (the formula I think you endorse and, I think inaccurately, ascribe to British referenda). So I really am at a loss. The formula used by the Charter Commission seems both to align with the policy it set up ahead of time, and with precedents in other electoral systems. Chris said: > > Given all of that, it is neither appropriate, not helpful, for you to now > > >launch into some kind of public critique of this process based on your > >own views. > Victoria said: > The community-elected trustees were repeatedly demonised and asked for > their opinion. Now that I’m expressing my opinion, it is suddenly > inappropriate. Is it because I’m a woman or because the opinion that the > Charter and the process of its' ratification are not fit for purpose should > be silenced by any means? > I disagree with Chris on this point. But I do find your position confusing. Is it not *you* who are now demonizing the committee, by asserting that their chosen methodology is unique among systems of referendum, and imputing ill motives? In addition to being inaccurate (as to the propriety of the tallying method), your words after the fact come across to me as spiteful. It's hard to see what they accomplish beyond furthering acrimony. Victoria said: > Dear all, > > I regret to see that the communication in this thread fractured. People > are now asking who am I to use the wikimedia.org email address. > I certainly don't object to a Trustee commenting on something that has been a significant project of the organization, that seems like an ideal use of a wikimedia.org email address! I also have no objection to the Board's singular act of vetoing the charter. What *does* concern me is trying to comprehend what the Board is aiming for. This seems like a uniquely important moment for the Board to clearly communicate its vision, as it rejects the proposal that arose out of the process it had previously defined. Instead, communications from the Board (including yours) seem to be varying shades of inaccurate, political, vague, and inarticulate. I would urge you to reflect on that. I'm not saying don't communicate, but the opposite. I urge you to communicate more clearly and carefully. Pete Editor of English Wikisource, Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, etc.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/BE5EZWEQ3VUVIUULHJHRZPOTEFC2SOBP/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
