poll: weighted voting or not?

[franksolich]

Nominations for the top DUmmies of 2013 being a mere 30 days hence, get your pencils ready.

This should be the last poll regarding the rules for 2013.

Should "weighted voting" be used?

Weighted votng is where one votes for ten primitives, and ranks them, his first choice given 10 points, his second 9 points, his third 8 points.....and his tenth choice 1 point.

<<<not in favor of this, but franksolich's will is not always the will of the People.

Mr. Wiggum will be counting the votes this year--all of them by private ballot remember, so the lurking primitives don't know how the voting's going, what the trend is--and assures me it's easily done.

I already knew that; it's as easy as strawberries-and-cream, counting weighted votes.

That is, if the votes are cast correctly.

And so I foresee problems with incorrectly-cast ballots; problems that exist because many people don't read the rules; they seem to have enough problems when one just says, "okay, gimme the names of ten primitives," and that's it.

But whatever.  Whatever the People want, the People will get.

[Delmar]

Too much care would have to be taken in ordering the DUmmies on the ballot.  The cream will rise to the top.  I'm for just giving the names of ten DUmmies and having them tallied up with a straightforward count.

[Ogre]

I voted no.

Everyone has the opportunity to supply a list of ten names.

Those primitives worthy of notice will garner the support they deserve.

Besides a weighted system seems to reek of something the primitives would do, and I don't want to be confused with the Democrat Party.

[GOBUCKS]

Well, I much prefer a weighted vote, to make it much more likely the cream will percolate through to the top.

Maybe the weighted vote could be limited to a list of five instead of ten if tallying is a problem.

If anyone casts a vote improperly, throw their vote out.

Decent and civilized people will never cast a vote with a hanging chad.

Anyone too DUmb to cast a valid ballot should be disenfranchised.

[franksolich]

Too much care would have to be taken in ordering the DUmmies on the ballot.  The cream will rise to the top.  I'm for just giving the names of ten DUmmies and having them tallied up with a straightforward count.

Two things; last year I had to count the ballots, the only time I've ever done that (Mr. Wiggum was busy in real life at the time--well, he still is pretty busy in real life, but his schedule's better now).

Even though it was a case of simply "gimme the names of ten primitives," nothing more than that, over a third of the ballots were incorrectly cast.

Normally, one would just toss the incorrectly-cast ballots; if the person didn't read the rules, the person didn't need to vote anyway.

But there were s-o-o-o-o-o-o many ties, even a three-way tie for tenth spot, and a two-way tie for second spot, that every vote was vitally important, so as to avoid ties.  And so I had to contact all those who cast their votes incorrectly, reminding them--not unkindly, but not kindly either--that not being a Democrat, I couldn't detect the "intent" of the voter.

We're not primitives here; everybody should know how to cast ballots correctly.....and the easiest and quickest way to know is by reading the rules first.

<<<always reads instruction manuals of things I buy, before I set them up and try them out.

Now, on the flip side of the coin, weighted voting perhaps prevents ties from happening, and that's a really good reason to have weighted voting.

So it's six bad things, half a dozen good things.  

[franksolich]

Well, I much prefer a weighted vote, to make it much more likely the cream will percolate through to the top.

Maybe the weighted vote could be limited to a list of five instead of ten if tallying is a problem.

Tallying weighted votes is not a problem.

If anyone casts a vote improperly, throw their vote out.

Decent and civilized people will never cast a vote with a hanging chad.

Anyone too DUmb to cast a valid ballot should be disenfranchised.

See my comment to Delmar, above.

[GOBUCKS]

Tallying weighted votes is not a problem.

See my comment to Delmar, above.

So if you use weighted votes, reduce or eliminate ties, and toss out improperly cast votes, problems solved.

It just doesn't seem right to give nine equally-weighted votes to undeserving, pretender DUmmies.

 

[franksolich]

So if you use weighted votes, reduce or eliminate ties, and toss out improperly cast votes, problems solved.

It just doesn't seem right to give nine equally-weighted votes to undeserving, pretender DUmmies.

I don't want to speak for my colleague Mr. Wiggum, but he appears to be in favor of weighted voting, and if in fact he is, then that's the way it's going to be, weighted voting.

My chief concern is incorrectly-cast ballots.....a problem easily solved by simply reading the rules.

[tanstaafl]

I voted YES. To have a weighted ballot.

Suspect, non-concurring voters could, possibly, print out the rules and have them at hand while voting. Easy-peasy. Also, a listing of the candidates you want to vote for at hand would , maybe, make it even easier-peasier.

Also, it may ensure that you voted for ten, instead of maybe eight or twelve.

And I meant SUSPECT whilst tapping out the above! The ties last year were an appalling demonstration of a lack of consideration of the candidates and the attributes they displayed at the DUmp and so magnificently displayed here at CC by the brave souls who gather the decrepit douche discharges for our pleasurable perusal and studied rhetorical responses.

[GOBUCKS]

The DUmp has very little depth, especially now with the disappearance of a few flashes in the pan who appeared to have potential.

The DUmp has one towering, gleaming, deranged Empire State Building of lunacy, surrounded by countless six-story cold-water walk-up tenements.

[franksolich]

The DUmp has one towering, gleaming, deranged Empire State Building of lunacy, surrounded by countless six-story cold-water walk-up tenements.

Great analogy.

[dutch508]

No.
One vote.
One DUmmy.

[BlueStateSaint]

Yes, for the reasons that GOBUCKS cited.

[miskie]

If the voting is to be weighted, I feel the ballot should be limited to perhaps 5, as suggested by GB. -Otherwise the ballot may swing unexpectedly if many people place DUmmyX in 2nd or 3rd place.

If we are to keep with the 10 vote tradition, I believe we should leave it as-is.

[franksolich]

Thanks to everybody for their input; at this point, no final decision has been made, but it looks semi-final, set in wet concrete, that we'll use weighted voting this year, and even though ten top primitives are selected, we'll allow voters to vote for only five (and ranking those five).

It'd be easier than having everyone vote for ten, and try to rank those ten.  So it'll probably be five.

But still, we'll have ten top DUmmies selected.

I'm not sure yet how we'll handle the second ten top DUmmies, the runners-up, but they're only dross after all.

To review the rule-changes this year:

(a) secret ballot only, no public votes
(b) creation of the "Nadin Abbott award," the "nadin," to accompany the other three special awards
(c) incorrect ballots casted will be pitched (instead of the voter being asked to correct his or hers)

And (d) weighted voting isn't final yet, but it's getting near to final.

We're now down to 29 shopping days until nominations are opened Thanksgiving Eve, but the rules for nominations will be posted the preceding Sunday; it's reasonable to assume three days is enough time for voters to become familiar with the rules, which after all are pretty simple.

I already have my ducks in a row, all my nominations wrapped up, and since I've been blabbing about them for a while now, it won't hurt to repeat them; (a) Skippy, the "NYC_SKP" primitive, (b) the cooking and baking primitives, (c) the "bullies" trying (and failing) to teach nadin some manners and common courtesy, and (d) the moles, whoever they all are.

[Skul]

The weighted/point system would more accurately indicate the a DUmmies true standing.

[franksolich]

The weighted/point system would more accurately indicate the a DUmmies true standing.

Yes.

But to satisfy those who have more than just five favorite DUmmies, I'm considering this:

5 points for one's top DUmmie
4 points for one's second-favorite DUmmie
3 points for one's third-favorite DUmmie
2 points for one's fourth-favorite DUmmie
1 point for one's fifth-favorite DUmmie

Okay, that part's easy to understand, but in case one has a sixth-, seventh-, eighth-, ninth-, and tenth-favorite DUmmie, one can list those too (but not bother ranking them), each one worth one-half of a point.

Thus having voted for ten DUmmies, total.

Some people, myself included, really want to be able to vote for ten, not just five, but I dunno if this might, or might not, complicate matters.  I'll leave it up to Mr. Wiggum, who has to count the votes, and whatever Mr. Wiggum wants, I'm eminently comfortable giving it to him.

God, I feel like I should be hired to run Democrat National Conventions.....

[Skul]

Yes.

But to satisfy those who have more than just five favorite DUmmies, I'm considering this:

5 points for one's top DUmmie
4 points for one's second-favorite DUmmie
3 points for one's third-favorite DUmmie
2 points for one's fourth-favorite DUmmie
1 point for one's fifth-favorite DUmmie

Okay, that part's easy to understand, but in case one has a sixth-, seventh-, eighth-, ninth-, and tenth-favorite DUmmie, one can list those too (but not bother ranking them), each one worth one-half of a point.

Thus having voted for ten DUmmies, total.

Some people, myself included, really want to be able to vote for ten, not just five, but I dunno if this might, or might not, complicate matters.  I'll leave it up to Mr. Wiggum, who has to count the votes, and whatever Mr. Wiggum wants, I'm eminently comfortable giving it to him.

God, I feel like I should be hired to run Democrat National Conventions.....

Not restricted to just five. Have ten with ten points for first choice,,,&etc.
For the "special" awards, hold that to five nominations, as they are a bit more specific.

[franksolich]

Not restricted to just five. Have ten with ten points for first choice,,,&etc.

Ten would be too many to rank, and we'd get a lot of frivolity.

It gets hazy--even for me--to rank primitives after the top five.

Which is one of the reasons voting will be restricted only to members of conservativecave; ostensibly people who come to the DUmpster are more knowledgeable of the quirks and flaws and psychoses of the individual primitives; in the past, margins were such that sometimes a frivolous primitive shoved a bona fide primitive down a slot or two.

I think it's best that one rate five primitives, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 points given in order, and if one wishes to vote for ten, the lower five be given half a point each; it could prove handy as a tie-breaker.

For the "special" awards, hold that to five nominations, as they are a bit more specific.

That will be done, because sometimes there's been problems with people not reading the rules, and nominating inappropriate primitives for the award.  Mr. Wiggum and franksolich will determine which five nominations most closely meet the criteria for these awards, and those will be on the ballot, only five each.

[BlueStateSaint]

I think it's best that one rate five primitives, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 points given in order, and if one wishes to vote for ten, the lower five be given half a point each; it could prove handy as a tie-breaker.

I'm alright with that.

[ChuckJ]

You and Mr. Wiggum are the ones doing the hard work so the choice should be yours, and I'm fine with whatever you two decide.

I do know that the DUmmies should be heaping praise and thanks on both of you. I would imagine that for many of them this is one of the few chances they've ever had to actually win an award and get recognition.