Topic: [Unofficial] New Global Moderator Election - [Discussion] (Read 11225 times)

The experience is not just about voting. The experience is about learning how others vote as well.
That too me was very interesting

Yes I liked it, it was exciting after all.
What this election missed is the prior agreement of theymos. If it was obtained the result would be listened to for sure.
For the moment, nothing is clear and no one knows what is the next step of theymos.
We will see anyway.

I already said this sentence to resume the whole situation

Democracy doesn't work. Neither here, nor anywhere else

And you were given another chance to see this yourself. Maybe, theymos himself was going to select Lauda for a Global Moderator position, but now he can't do that because it would mean going against the crowd opinion (well, the choice of majority), and he may not want that. Maybe, he wanted to pick up Mitchell as a new Global Moderator after all, but now he won't do that since it would mean indulging the crowd, and he might be strongly opposed to that. Aren't we supposed to be this way overall? Consequently, these elections have likely left him no other option but to completely ignore their results, which is perfectly understandable and expected

You liked the experience of voting for something in which the vote was literally not listened to

A democracy in a private property of someone else 
Well wonder know how theymos thinks about this and if he thinks that the forums needs a new global mod or not for the moment.
The experience was great and I personally liked it.

That should have been expected

Personally, I don't care so much about who will get promoted to a Global Moderator position (at least as long as they don't interfere with normal posters) as about the idea of the Banned rank, which has been seemingly abandoned by now. Implementing that would render very bad service to the forum, and it's a pity that those supporting this idea don't fully understand the consequences


How former and present Global Moderators were selected?

What is the right way then ? Please enlighten us Bitcointalk Jesus.

nor he will..
I don't think theymos will show any interest on these play of kids type activities which you guys are doing.. everything here is nothing but just a none sense game. this is not a way to select a global mod.

Unfortunately nothing has been done. I have PM'ed theymos and attempted to get his attention about this but so far he has not responded.

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me

My head is spinning with all this analysis.
We should have an electoral college for this election. 
Let the contestants win local boards and then we will have a face off.

More analysis! It's head-to-head time as we pit each candidate against each other candidate in a one-on-one contest for majority. For each match-up, only ballots which voted for one or both of the candidates are counted (ballots which voted for both count for whichever candidate was ranked higher). Here are the results:


As Mitchell has a majority over every other candidate, he is the Condorcet winner. Conversely, xandry is the Condorcet loser, being defeated by every other candidate. (Note that an election will not necessarily have a Condorcet winner and loser.)

This system always elects the Condorcet winner when one exists, so naturally Mitchell comes out on top. As with the other systems where #1 votes aren't as important, achow101 reaches 3rd place and HostFat drops to 5th. Notably, the result is perfectly linear, as each candidate loses to every higher-placed candidate and defeats every lower-placed candidate, ie, there are no non-transitive preferences.

Well, I was out for days and seeing the results just sounds fair to me, tnx to that expert above who spend some time in taking and analyzing everything out. Now it would go up to theymos by now i supposed? Much likely how the candidates want's the forum to be better again not just in terms of banning but also helping others

cheers,

Oh, no, please not again!


Are you going to participate?

I think such a contest might attract by far more voters than the recent "elections", provided the contestants would be able to prove their identities first. Somehow, I won't be quite happy to see among the winners of this beauty contest some 50-year-old bald-headed crook with a pot belly and a set of false teeth

Foxpup, those charts are amazing. Thanks for doing them!

Excellent analysis Foxpup; thank you for doing that.

I may be inclined to run another random election just to get some more of these stats. Maybe Miss Bitcointalk 2016?

Everything from counting the votes to formatting the charts was all by hand, with some help from a calculator and two cans of Red Bull. That's why it took so long to push out. If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.

---

Bonus half-arsed analysis: Since two moderators might be promoted, I should note that under a two-winner single transferable vote (the multiple-winner version of instant run-off voting), Lauda and Mitchell would both win, regardless of what rules are used (if the Droop quota (33.3̅%+1) is used, they both win in round 3 above with 0.6̅ surplus votes each* (an exact tie), while if the Hare quota (50%) is used, Mitchell achieves quota in round 5, and Lauda wins by default being the only remaining candidate for Mitchell's 1.5 surplus votes to transfer to).

*These 1.3̅ votes would be subdivided further between the remaining candidates (HostFat and Dabs) based on the averaged preferences of all the votes for the winners, which means counting them all over again, which I'm not going to do because 1.3̅ votes isn't quite enough to bump Dabs into 3rd place, no matter which way they go.

 That is an amazing analysis.  Did you type that all by hand or did you write some code to push it out?

That is a great analysis Foxpup, thanks for doing it!

Lauda got a couple of extra votes in the final day, but in the end it just wasn't enough. Congratulations to Mitchell.

---

Here's how the result would have turned out under some other voting systems:
Lauda would have won under this system, though the rankings of the other candidates would remain unchanged.

Mitchell still wins by a narrow margin, but with no eliminations, achow101 takes 3rd place. With #1 votes not as helpful under this system, and not having much else to go on, HostFat drops down to 5th place. Last, and in fact least, there is no longer a tie for last place. Xandry loses having received only a single #3 vote.

Mitchell is the only candidate to reach the requisite 59 votes and is the clear winner. As with the Borda system, achow101 is in 3rd and HostFat is in 5th, with #2 votes being more decisive. Again, xandry is in last place, with the single #3 vote not counting at all.

It's worth noting that this election was close enough that under systems where ballot exhaustion is a possibility (instant run-off and Bucklin), the exhausted ballots could have decided the outcome had they counted. Most of them were cases of people not putting a #2 or #3 preference. The outcome might have been different had people known how to vote properly.

(Some percentages may not add to exactly 100.0% due to rounding errors.)