[r6rs-discuss] SC Roles (was Re: voting process)
Scheme at Bawden.Org
Tue Nov 11 06:31:38 EST 2008
From: Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 01:49:37 -0500
On 9-Nov-08, at 12:17 AM, Alan Bawden wrote:
> Now I confess I'm still in the dark about how exactly such a combined
> vote could work in a way that appears to be fair....
And I'm -still- in the dark on how this can be done. If people will be
sending us a -single- message that contains -both- a ranking of candidates,
-and- a short essay that requires our judgment, how do we avoid the
appearance of bias when rejecting a voter given that we already know who he
would be voting for if we allowed him to vote?
I know you have said -you- trust the SC to be fair, but there are others
who have publicly stated that they do -not-. I'm tired of having people
pissed off at me, and I don't want to give anybody any excuses to complain
I've thought about this some. My first reaction was to say that it is
fair given that all voters are treated equally. However, if one
considers the accessibility to the voting process then I would have to
say it is unfair because some people can access the voting process
(registration and vote on the web) more easily than others.
By comparison, this kind of bias seems relatively minor to me. In fact it
seems that any election procedure has some slight unfairness of this sort
built it. E.g., I'm not particularly upset that when I voted last week I
had to walk about 4 blocks to the polling place, while others in my
precinct only had to walk across the street.
It is a question of the voter having enough free time, having the
technical facility to access the registration and voting forms, and
being reminded of the deadlines before they are passed. I'm
specifically thinking of those who registered for the R6RS vote, but did
not actually vote.
Well I'm not sure you should read too much into that. During the final
week of the R6RS vote, I reminded people several times to vote, so any
voter who was reading his or her mail had plenty of warning that the
deadline was approaching. Why those people chose not to vote I have no
idea, but the fact that they did not vote does not necessarily indicate
some kind of failure of the process. For example, some may have simply
failed to find the time to read the report, and thus were unable to make up
Of course no procedure can be totally fair, but the goal is to be as
fair as possible. I think that having a single submission of
registration and vote is closer to the ideal.
Except we still have no idea how to handle a single submission in a way
that doesn't open us up to an obvious charge of bias.
I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Canada you have to show an
ID when you go to the polling station. To me the "registration" is a
form of ID of being a Scheme "citizen", so I find the single event
registration+vote to be natural.
But does the person who checks your ID know how you are going to vote
before he has to decide whether or not to let you pass?
More information about the r6rs-discuss