Talk:Code of Conduct/Commission/Election/2017/Vote

Apologies if I messed up

So I decided to create this page to start the voting process and I tried to follow a fairly simple voting system of where you just place your support underneath the nominees name. I understand the Miraheze staff may have had something in mind and I apologise in advance and I remind you that the page was created in good faith. If the page creation was appropriate feel free to modify it if it needs it CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

One vote or multiple?

Is everyone allowed to vote for each candidate once or do they have to pick one candidate to vote for? CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Revi: I also have that doubt. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 18:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to cast their vote should really only do so once otherwise is defeats the object of "having your say" if you are going to vote for everyone equally. I know I don't spend much time on Meta. I would like to cast a vote but to be honest I don't really know who to vote for mainly for; I don't know any of the nominees and so for that reason, should I vote and if so, would it be a wasted vote? Borderman ^(Talk) 00:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Borderman: Maybe you could ask all the candidates here questions to know their points of view and thus have a vision of who would be most suitable for you. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Thanks for the suggestion. I wasn't going to but as you mentioned it, I will. Borderman ^(Talk) 01:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Late for the stuff, but I agree with borderman. — revi 04:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Revi: I might be late to comment but I have kept up with the overall progression of this and many other subjects. Regarding single or multiple votes, aren't multiple votes null and void? But now votes have already been cast they can't be removed. Borderman ^(Talk) 09:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It has not been said anywhere, officially, that multiple votes aren't allowed, therefore I do not think they should be null and void, nor should they be removed, since that was not clarified and users have already cast their votes. Reception123 (talk) (C) 12:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This will have to be addressed next year CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 14:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This should be resolved before our first round of election is closed, imo. Otherwise result is not fair. — revi 15:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Revi otherwise the results could be convoluted. I guess you could argue for multiple votes as there are two commission member roles available. If a multiple vote is officially offered users should not cast more than two votes (one for each of their chosen nominees). Personally, I believe a vote should be singular. Borderman ^(Talk) 15:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would be for two votes since as you mentioned, the election is for choosing two commission members so it would be fair having two votes per person. Reception123 (talk) (C) 15:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Having thought about it some more, it does make sense to cast two votes, one for each of the chosen nominees. So with this in mind, I will go against what I originally said regarding casting a singular vote and cast two votes. Borderman ^(Talk) 12:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support 2 votes. tiene más lógica. En caso de que se decida, se tiene que avisar a los que han votado más de una vez para que arreglen sus votos (incluyéndome). --Wiki1776 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I was one of those users. Would these additional votes have to be crossed out or deleted? —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 02:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Crossing out will be enough. — revi 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved struck-through votes to the top of the list (the bottom would be equally good; the timestamp shows the real sequence) and turned them into bullets, so that it's easy to see the candidate's count of votes. When a voter leaves something arbitrary inside a numbered list, the numbering resets to 1 for the next vote. Spıke (talk)12:59 16-Nov-2017

What should be done if someone does not retract the excess votes? — revi 07:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Revi: Maybe all of those individual's votes should be rescinded. They essentially become invalid. Borderman ^(Talk) 12:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That's right, they are illegal votes. When a voter has 2 votes but casts 3, there is no way to figure out "what he meant to do." Is the third vote a lukewarm afterthought? or a change of enthusiasm regarding his earlier votes? Spıke (talk)13:02 16-Nov-2017

I ping to Stranger195 who apparently is the only one who has not retracted the excess votes. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 13:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've striked out my extra votes. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 10:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeframe

In all elections there is a timeframe for voting which in British and Irish general elections is from 7am to 10pm. As we are on Miraheze we have a larger timeframe but how long will that timeframe be? CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

People here live in a diverse timezones (it’s 3AM in my timezone, for example) which make single day vote like in the real world impossible (and it’s internet forum anyway) so we usually cut by the date. I propose 7 days after the initial starting? — revi 18:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with revi, 7 days sounds reasonable for such a vote. Reception123 (talk) (C) 18:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support 7 days. Da tiempo para hacer preguntas o revisar. También les da oportunidad a los usuarios que hoy por alguna razón no han podido votar pero mañana sí podrían. --Wiki1776 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 17:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

7 days from the first vote cast? CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Since that is when the voting page was created, I think that is fair. So therefore voting should end on 17 November 2017‎ at 15:49 UTC. Reception123 (talk) (C) 18:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Reception123. --Wiki1776 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting closed

In accordance with the above discussion of timeframe I believe the voting is closed. Congratulations to Alvaro for his election to the Code of Conduct commission and I hope him and I will work together well on the commission :D CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 22:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Revi: Is it possible to make it official? —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 01:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My congratulations to you both on your victory in this matter. GethN7 (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The vote has now been closed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 08:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@GethN7: Thanks. Equally you were a good candidate. I hope that next year he will be elected too. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 14:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)