2006 ENnies Judge Voting Poll/Thread

[Xath]

Imagine the turmoil you would have if you had one vote and couldn't see the polls. Voter turnout in my opinion is low for the number of people on this board. The average person I think is somewhat like me. They have a few posts, read the boards regularly, but aren't on here all the time accumulating massive post counts. This vote is really sort of a popularity contest. One could argue those with higher post counts are more involved in the community, have time to put the work in, etc. I would for the most part would agree with that. As I said before Crothian, TB, Cthulu's Librarian, and JoeG are all people I would have voted for and who are more than qualified IMHO. But what happens to me the average Enworlder when I have a single vote to dispearse amongst those four Enworld celebrities? I think things may get more interesting.

That would certainly be interesting.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

It is a lot of extra work. But it does have one single advantage that does help, the SC gets the books earlier then the judges so he does have more time to read the books.

Which is the main reason I put myself out there as the SC. I'm not really looking forward to doing the extra work, but someone has to do it. If I can get the books a week or so ahead of everyone else, that will help spread the work out a bit, lesening the strain all the reading puts on me, my wife, and my job.

However no one seems concerned that Cthulu's Librarian (as an example) might loose so they don't bother voting.

If Cthulu's Librarian was not in the race at all (and the votes for him spread evenly) then the competition between diaglo, Ankh-Morpork Guard, Xath, Umbran, & Keeper of Secrets would be much more dramatic.

Drama increases voter turnout

Why are you picking on me?

Yes, Drama does increase voter turnout. I've been at the center of that drama the past two years, running neck & neck for the 5th position each year, and I do feel that the tension of not knowing who was going to grab the last spot did help pull in extra votes up until the final day. As has been said over and over, I too would prefer to have a closed poll, but technical complications got in the way, and Dextra decided to go with what we had instead of delaying the voting.

 

[fusangite]

Well, let's argue meaning then - is any real harm done to someone who has already served as a judge (perhaps already served multiple times) if you occasionally say "not this year"?

That's an argument in favour of judges voluntarily relinquishing their positions. This happens all the time in real elections and happens here on ENWorld -- thus, the gradual turnover in the judging panel. In a sense you are going after a problem we do not have; the judging panel does turn over and different people are elected every year, in part because some judges take time off.

Right. As if there's enough information in the nominations thread to claim real familiarity?

Different judges' popularity is based on different things. Just as in real-world elections where a candidate's record in public life as a business person, community leader, etc. before entering electoral politics has a preponderant effect on her popularity, so too with ENNies judging positions. Candidates who enter general elections with no pre-existing public profile don't do as well as those who have one, in part because people like to elect candidates who have a track record of service, especially volunteer service to the community.

I assume, for instance, that Crothian does well in these elections in part because people read his reviews and trust them. I would hope that our voters look at people's reviews and posting records on the boards as well as what little info is posted on the nominations thread. I would also suggest that this carries off this site. If Gary Gygax retired from publishing or took a sabbatical, I don't think there is any doubt that he would top the polls by a mile in the ENNies judge election. And so it should be.

How many new faces have ever failed to meet the requirements?

None, as far as I know. Which seems to me to indicate the system is working.

Diaglo is one of the best-known folks on these boards. If Hong had run, he might beat Diaglo, but none of the rest of us really stand a chance.

Doesn't that suggest that the solution is to build your profile? If you really want to get elected, you know what you have to do: campaign. You seem to be arguing that it is unfair for people who don't campaign to not have much of a chance. That's a problem with elections. If you don't campaign in the pre-writ period, you won't win. It's true everywhere they have elections.

However, to address part of it - I don't think incumbents should be completely excluded. I think that some limit on the number of terms in a row that one could serve might be healthy for the awards.

Well, clearly the voters don't agree with you there. Otherwise, they would, as is their right every election, limit the number of consecutive terms served by one or more of the candidates.

Why? Well, drama does improve voter interest and turnout. There is no drama in this election, and I don't think there was much drama in the previous one, and not much, as I recall, the year before that, either.

Perhaps Dextra could help us out here. How many votes were cast in these elections? Does this statistically correlate to this "drama" factor. Besides, if you want drama in the election, make as many witty posts as TB, write as many reviews as Crothian; create drama, in other words, by presenting yourself as a candidate of equal attractiveness to the incumbents. I don't think we are going to have an election that is somehow more dramatic or attractive if we remove candidates that each year's results clearly indicate, people want to vote for.

A turnover of judges would mean voters couldn't sit back and assume they'd get judges they like.

Convincing people that their franchise will be compromised does not strike me as a good tactic for improving turnout. "Hey guys! You should really vote in this election! The field is populated by unknowns you'll have to do extra work to learn about. You won't be allowed to vote for the people you think will do the best job. And you are less likely to be able to trust that casting your vote will result in the election of competent judges." I've heard this argument before; it doesn't make sense to argue that increasing the opportunity cost of voting will increase the number of people who vote.

Of course, if you prefer, we can go the "All Star" route. Say that only the big guns are allowed to run. Us small fry don't stand much chance as it stands anyway, os it isn't like we are losing much.

Umbran, I always vote for you, knowing you will lose. How do I know you will lose? Not because you are not an incumbent. Virtually? every year, somebody gets onto the panel who is not an incumbent, after all. I know you are going to lose because you act like me on this forum. Your posts often come off like mine: overly intellectual, argumentative and dismissive of people's points of view. Having met a number of the incumbents, I can attest that they could post the way you and I do. But they don't, except on really bad days. They put up a public front on these forums where they hold back on lording their superior knowledge and intelligence over others; they find funny, entertaining things to post that brighten everybody's day reading them or they cultivate an image of themselves as fair arbiters in conflicts.

Your chances of winning are directly related to your ability to come off as diligent, credible, fair and charismatic on these forums. You and I don't do that. That's why we aren't going to get to be judges unless we care enough about getting the job to act more like PirateCat, Crothian, Teflon Billy, etc. People win due to positive associations with their screen handle. They correlates to incumbency but incumbency does not build these associations; pithy entertaining posts and trustworthy reviews build those associations.

And you yourself have said that incumbants should be favored...

I'm not sure why, though.

We don't need an institutional mechanism to favour incumbents because the voters do that. What you are really saying is that you don't trust the voters to choose the best candidates. We don't need to demonstrate that incumbents do a better job; you need to demonstrate why the voters are untrustworthy, given the track record even you credit to them that

nobody has shown me an example of a new judge who has fallen down on the job and not done the work, and done it well.

This suggests to me that the voters have a proven track record of selecting good judges, incumbent and non-incumbent. It also reminds us that non-incumbents get elected every cycle.

Until someone backs up the fear with a bit of evidence, I don't see why there should be any preference to incumbancy.

But the system does not privilege incumbents. The voters re-elect incumbents but voter choice is absolutely unfettered. By your reasoning, the system gives preference to men over women, white people over people of colour, etc. I grew up in a city that also uses the multi-member plurality system for municipal elections. In the 1970s and 1980s, incumbency appeared to be a powerful force and some argued that the system privileged incumbents. Since 1993, this supposed systemic advantage for incumbents has been refuted by election result after election result (sadly I think this November's elections will continue the trend). How much advantage incumbency confers is 100% in the hands of the individual voters. If you can make the case to them, as happened in my home town, that the incumbents need to be turfed or that there are superior candidates to replace them, the incumbents will lose.

I've said multiple times - I think it might increase voter turnout. So far, it is still uncertain if we'll match last year's turnout, so I don't know if we have to quibble if I am looking for increased absolute numbers, or increased growth rate.

Let's get some solid turnout stats from previous years before we continue there; otherwise I'm going to continue to suspect that the current system is producing steadily increasing turnout.

 

[fusangite]

If active campaigning were allowed, you'd be correct.

As far as I know, the only restriction on campaigning is that it not interrupt threads on other topics during the voting period to talk about the vote. But as a candidate, you may still post to any threads and be witty, charming and knowledgeable. Furthermore, you can camapign in any way you want outside of ENWorld; for instance, you might go through your past correspondence with members of ENWorld and send them notes reminding them to vote for you and recommending a voting strategy (ie. how many votes to cast, etc.). More importantly still, you can encourage people to join ENWorld before the nomination period so that they can vote in the election. I think the community is well-served by this as it addresses the problem of such a large portion of ENWorlders being lurkers. Potential candidates are given a strong incentive not only to get their friends and associates to join but to post as well.

Nobody is allowed to mobilize anyone actively, and for good reason. So I think this argument doesn't hold up well.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, I haven't broken any rules by encouraging all the members of my Monday night gaming group to join ENWorld because I might run for a judge spot this year.

As for limiting the choices open to voters - yes, this suggestion would limit choice somewhat. But, considering how little use is being made of the breadth of choice currently available, I'm not sure that's a problem.

But you are not proposing to limit the ability to vote for candidates getting 8% of the vote (I think disenfranchising 1 in 12 people is pretty serious anyway!); you are prposing to limit the ability to vote for candidates getting 40% or more of the vote. In other words, you are proposing to deny almost half or more of the people bothering to vote the opportunity to vote for one or more of the people they would like to.

Also I find it really twisted that you are suggesting people aren't making use of their democratic opportunities because most won't allocate votes to less attractive candidates. By your reasoning, people who voted for Nader somehow made better "use" of the opportunities afforded them by the voting system than those who voted for Bush. Everybody who participates in an election makes equal use of their vote.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Why are you picking on me?

Sorry, You just happen to be perfectly positioned for "Drama". I have no complaint about your ability to be a Judge.

 

[JoeGKushner]

As far as I know, the only restriction on campaigning is that it not interrupt threads on other topics during the voting period to talk about the vote. But as a candidate, you may still post to any threads and be witty, charming and knowledgeable. Furthermore, you can camapign in any way you want outside of ENWorld; for instance, you might go through your past correspondence with members of ENWorld and send them notes reminding them to vote for you and recommending a voting strategy (ie. how many votes to cast, etc.). More importantly still, you can encourage people to join ENWorld before the nomination period so that they can vote in the election.

I know I did that for my regular groups.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Here are the numbers from 8:30 (EDT) this morning. We are now at 78% of last years turnout. If it continues at this pace voter turnout will be lower than last year.

Voters: 426

297	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    			69.72% 
273 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			64.08% 
250 	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    			58.69% 
229 	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC    	53.76% 
142 	diaglo (David Temporado)    			33.33% 
 
 99 	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)    		23.24%
 90 	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			21.13%
 65 	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			15.26% 

 64 	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		15.02% 

 46 	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		10.80% 
 43 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    			10.09% 
 42 	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 9.86% 

 36 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    			 8.45% 
 30 	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    			 7.04% 
 28 	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.57% 
 22 	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    			 5.16% 
 20 	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 4.69%

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Sorry, You just happen to be perfectly positioned for "Drama". I have no complaint about your ability to be a Judge.

No problem. I was just having a bit of fun with the smileys. I know you were just using me as an example

As far as I know, the only restriction on campaigning is that it not interrupt threads on other topics during the voting period to talk about the vote. But as a candidate, you may still post to any threads and be witty, charming and knowledgeable. Furthermore, you can camapign in any way you want outside of ENWorld; for instance, you might go through your past correspondence with members of ENWorld and send them notes reminding them to vote for you and recommending a voting strategy (ie. how many votes to cast, etc.). More importantly still, you can encourage people to join ENWorld before the nomination period so that they can vote in the election.

I know I did that for my regular groups.

As did I.

 

[fusangite]

This is an oversiplification. When there are more strong canidates than elected positions available, then voter turnout increases. (People are as often voting "against" the other canidate as for their own.)

I have no problem with this modification of my position. By your argument, then, the relative lack of turnover is a function of the losing candidates being, while good, less endowed with the qualities that matter to voters.

Meanwhile no one at this point expects Umbran to win (no offence, I voted for you) and so they don't bother voting.

Right -- so the solution is for Umbran, et al to present themselves as viable candidates, namely by campaigning effectively.

If Cthulu's Librarian was not in the race at all (and the votes for him spread evenly) then the competition between diaglo, Ankh-Morpork Guard, Xath, Umbran, & Keeper of Secrets would be much more dramatic.

Would it attract more attention, though?

Drama increases voter turnout

In my view, this thesis needs modification. Drama in which one is not invested does nothing. Bitter, dramatic fights amongst unknown candidates don't increase turnout at all; they make people tune out. Just watch a fringe party primary, leadership or nomination contest and you'll know what I mean.

Rocky winning was dramatic because he knocked off Apollo Creed. Rocky becoming the heavyweight champion would have been less dramatic if Apollo Creed has been mandatorily retired and Rocky had to fight some other unknown.

 

[fusangite]

He knows Croathian and TB and has said good things about both of them. Along with their online popularity, generally well thought out posts, etc that would generally secure my vote. A word of confidence from a friend can definitely sway me towards a candidate.

Now here's why I didn't vote for either of them (nothing personel)

In the current format with multiple votes and being able to see the poles I would conclude the following:

1. Withholding a vote is almost as good as voting for your favorite candidate. I want Kevin to win. I don't know very many other people other than by online activity, post count, board visibility, etc. My next few votes would have likely gone to current leaders (Crothian, TB, Cthulu's Librarian, JoeG) All of them are likely to win a coveted spot and could potentially knock out my prefered candidate, so why vote for those other four at all?

This is a flaw in the multi-member plurality system definitely. In the essay I wrote on why it should not be used for voting on the ENNies winners, I expressed this very problem. There are a few ways around it, one of which, called SNTV (Single Non-Transferrable Vote) you suggest below. SNTV has other wasted vote/strategic voting problems that, while different from the current MMP (mutli-member plurality) system also result in some paradoxes. However, these paradoxes/problems are only evident if there is a significant amount of slate voting in the system.

Imagine the turmoil you would have if you had one vote and couldn't see the polls.

If you are interested in looking at other systems for elections like this, I recommend you consider Limited Vote (like the option you suggest but with the voter casting 2-4 votes), Cumulative Vote (the voter still has 5 votes but can give candidates anywhere between 1 and 5) and Single Transferrable Vote (like the system you suggest but with a ranked ballot to prevent wasting of votes).

Each of these systems interacts with local political culture in different ways to produce variable outcomes.

I personally think that the tendency of multi-member plurality systems to produce essentially democratic results that do skew to under-represent fringe candidates probably makes it the right system for ENWorld.

EDIT: I do strongly support your position that the results should only be visible after the polls close.