Steve B wrote:
it is no surprise that the vote totals are low in these last minute
self serving polls
most anyone could have foreseen that
Stay Tuned Regards
Steve
Hi Steve,
are you suggesting that nobody else except me will take any notice of what the "active" members think?
Regards, Graham.
hi Graham
no
only that it does not surprise me that the vote totals were low
as i predicted they would be
do the low vote totals surprise you.?
i guess they do
Best
Steve
Yes - I must admit that the low vote numbers are disappointing, especially after the furore raised by some members over these issues.
Perhaps a storm in a teacup and many just don't care enough about them to bother voting?
Gandalf wrote:It's ridiculous how much whining has been caused by a few polls...
If you're concerned about such votes being manipulated by multiple accounts, there are some fairly simple solutions. For example, an administrator could create a temporary voting forum which only members who joined over 10 days ago have access to.
Unfortunately, this kind of poll has been shown to be faulty, many times. The only reasonable way to have a poll is to randomly select members and poll them. Otherwise the poll comes nowhere near representing a cross-section of the membership.
Graham Banks wrote:
Perhaps a storm in a teacup and many just don't care enough about them to bother voting?
i think not
but it is a pity you are disappointed because it was fairly obvious that the totals would be low for the reasons i gave earlier in this thread when you first announced your polls
for the election however ..i suspect .. will see a nice and healthy voter turnout
Graham Banks wrote:
Perhaps a storm in a teacup and many just don't care enough about them to bother voting?
i think not
but it is a pity you are disappointed because it was fairly obvious that the totals would be low for the reasons i gave earlier in this thread when you first announced your polls
My Best
Steve
Despite the low voting numbers to date, I think that the polls give a clear enough message, which is why I took note of them.
As I said, I doubt that the results would change a lot with more votes.
bob wrote:...
Otherwise the poll comes nowhere near representing a cross-section of the membership.
Neither do elections, unless everyone votes.
Running elections that way, using a random sample of people, probably would reflect the people's desires more accurately. Some countries try to avoid this by mandating that everyone votes, although that may not be their primary reason.
I'm not sure which method gives you better results, where better is defined as a wise decision.
bob wrote:...
Otherwise the poll comes nowhere near representing a cross-section of the membership.
Neither do elections, unless everyone votes.
Running elections that way, using a random sample of people, probably would reflect the people's desires more accurately. Some countries try to avoid this by mandating that everyone votes, although that may not be their primary reason.
I'm not sure which method gives you better results, where better is defined as a wise decision.
In the case of polls, only the ones interested vote. When in reality the majority might choose neither of the two given alternatives, as one example.