Difference between revisions of "Forum:2019 Weird gloop elections: results and discussion"

From Meta Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Protected "Forum:2019 Weird gloop elections: results and discussion": Archive ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)))
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 20:50, 9 February 2020

Forums: Index > 2019 Weird gloop elections: results and discussion
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 February 2020 by Gaz Lloyd.

Hi everyone! The results from the 2019 election have been posted at Weird Gloop elections/2019/Results.

Thanks to everyone who got involved in this process. Thanks especially to the candidates, who answered a lot of tough questions in the last month. To everyone who voted and asked questions: please, please, stay involved with the governance over the course of this year. If the board meeting discussion threads get as much interaction as the election did, we'll be in a good place.

Gaz and I will be in contact with the successful candidates in the coming weeks to finalize the appointments.

This thread can also serve as a post-mortem for the elections – what went well, or poorly? How was the timing? Are people curious about how different eligibility metrics would have changed things? ʞooɔ 00:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Question - Purely academic question: I see the last spot for the RSW board seems to have come down to what is essentially a 30-28 vote (correct me if I'm misunderstanding the chart). I'm curious if the voting system had an effect or what the results would have been if other voting systems were used, such as instant runoff. Also, what would have happened if instead of 30-28 we had a 29-29 tie? --LiquidHelm 15:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You're reading it correctly. It appears to me that any other ranked choice method would give the same result, since neither candidate was close enough in the first place votes for that to make any difference, and we didn't need to get into any of the intricacies of Schulze because there was a strict ordering.
I'm honestly not sure what we would have done if there was a tie -- none of the tiebreaking options look particularly salient. I imagine we'd leave the election open a bit longer. ʞooɔ 02:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion has died down. Gaz (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)