On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 9:13 PM, inode0 <inode0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am not used to range voting, but I have nothing against that method.
I do have some suggestion regarding the election process. I was
commented about during the election process but I dropped the issue
because I felt that I was disrupting the process. I did wanted "to
change rules at the middle of the game." Now that elections are over I
suggest to amend rules before next run.
I suggest that the candidate statements should be closed on the same
date of volunteering for the seat. If some one does not want to write
a statement is okey to leave it blank.
Other suggestion is to stablish an order for the list of candidates. I
don't care if it is ordered by time of volunteering or if it is
alphabetically. But I find a bit rude that some one added himself at
the top, when every body was adding themselves at the bottom. I know
that there was not rule for that.
I think they changed the order with alphabetical after you pointed out
Alphabetical might a nice and simple solution.
IMHO I don't have any problem with range voting, I think is a bit better
than 0/1 voting because if you don't know the candidate you can give him
a vote based on what you read. With the range voting you have more
choice based on your feeling.
For the low participation I would like to hear the voice of someone who
didn't vote (don't be shy, please), my opinion is lazyness.