Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Approval voting makes more sense than Range vot (Score 1) 614

(reposted comment with correct formatting)

>Might as well just go with the simpler Approval voting... It's simpler, and
>more effective in my experience.

I partially agree. The most effective strategy under Range voting is to
always vote max or min score for each candidate that you think is a real
contender to win. Any other vote could be considered a partial abstention.
If the voting instructions are poor or minimal many voters will accidentally
partially abstain which will understandably make them angry. But if the instructions
are well written then I do not think that this will happen to a significant degree.

I like Approval voting but I see allowing partial abstentions as being a small improvement. I don't like the idea of encouraging frequent accidental partial abstentions so my support for Range Voting is very sensitive to the context and voting instructions.

Some more of my thoughts on this:
  http://allaboutvoting.com/2008/01/07/our-voting-system-is-a-loser/

See also the Range Voting advocacy site's comparison of Range vs. Approval and make up your own mind:
  http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVapp.html

The Courts

Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election 177

For only the second time in California history, a judge in Alameda County voided an election result and called for the election to be re-run, because the e-voting tallies from Diebold machines couldn't be audited. The vote was on a controversial ballot measure addressing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, and the result was a close margin. Activists went to court to demand a recount, but after the lawsuit was filed, elections officials sent voting machines back to Diebold. The court found that 96% of the necessary audit information had been erased. The judge ordered the ballot measure to be re-run in the next election.
The Courts

Journal SPAM: Judge Voids California Election Over E-Voting Flaws 177

A judge in Alameda County, California, has voided some election results after the e-voting tallies from Diebold machines couldn't be audited. The vote was on a controversial ballot measure addressing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, and the expected result was a close margin. Activists went to court to demand a recount, but elections officials had

Feed Techdirt: Romney Learns About The Pitfalls Of User-Generated Content (techdirt.com)

In late August, the Romney presidential campaign unveiled a create-your-own-ad contest that gave Mitt Romney supporters the opportunity to create a television ad that the campaign would air in New Hampshire. Well, the winner was announced last week. Unfortunately for the Romney campaign, Bruce Reed, a Democratic strategist turned blogger, submitted his own entry, a hilarious video making fun of Romney. At one point Reed's video had more page views than all the official finalists put together. As a result, the contest wound up mostly giving Romney's critics an opportunity to make fun of him.

It's a problem that often crops up when people try to mix the top-down structure of a campaign or a company with the bottom-up ethos of user-generated content. Often, the users don't generate the kind of content you were expecting. Romney's experience demonstrates a couple of important points about the challenges of harnessing user-generated content that we can glean from the open source world. One lesson is that it's a bad idea to pin all your hopes on one big product release. Open source projects have found that it makes more sense to release stuff as it's ready, rather than trying to commit to finishing particular features by a particular date. By the same token, instead of promising to spend tens of thousands of dollars airing a single winning ad, Romney could have made it a weekly contest, with a small cash prize to each week's winner. That probably would have generated just as many entries, created more enthusiasm, and made it a less juicy target for the pranksters of the world. If someone made a really good ad, they could still run it on TV if they wanted to, but they wouldn't be forced spend a lot of money airing an ad that wasn't very good. It would also allow them to have a sense of humor about critical ads instead of trying to block them all from the site.

A more fundamental point, which also comes from the open source world, is that good user generated content is almost always the product of an enthusiastic and cohesive online community. Every significant open source project has a tight-knit community of developers, and Wikipedia is run by several hundred volunteer editors. User-generated commercials are no different. The more people there are creating videos, commenting and voting on other peoples' videos, and policing potential vandalism, the more likely the contest will turn out to be a success. Of course, a community of enthusiastic supporters has uses far beyond producing free TV ads. That's why it's silly to do user-generating content as a one-time, high-profile event. Not only is such an effort less likely to succeed on its own terms, but it also misses the opportunity to harness the interest the contest generates into building longer-term relationships. If people participate in a contest and then never come back to the site, that's a huge missed opportunity. Of course, none of this is unique to candidates; the same principles apply to companies: user generated commercials can work brilliantly for companies, but they're best seen as an integral part of a continuing relationship with your most enthusiastic online customers, not as a one-off publicity stunt.

Tim Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Tim Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.


Feed Techdirt: Judge Voids Election Results Over E-Voting Results That Couldn't Be Audited (techdirt.com)

Apparently a judge in Alameda County, California, has voided some election results after the e-voting tallies from Diebold machines couldn't be audited. The vote was on a controversial ballot measure, where the end result was quite close. Some activists went to court to demand a recount, but elections officials had already sent the machines back to Diebold, who had conveniently erased 96% of the necessary audit information. The issue will return to the ballot in the next election. Either way, this highlights one of the problems of e-voting machines that have no verifiable audit trail, and it's nice to see a judge actually recognizing that. Of course, this time it was for a ballot measure that can wait until the next election. What about cases where these machines were used for electing officials?

Slashdot Top Deals

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...