Unofficial voters guide

[Fernando Book]

I've written an unofficial voters guide to this election. I'm very sorry for the delay, but I couldn't finish it before. It has two parts, in PDF files. The [url=http://www.mediafire.com/?2z0twjclggx:2rhy5k1k]first one[/url:2rhy5k1k]is a guide on the RA and how to vote. The [url=http://www.mediafire.com/?aygzlrymhiw:2rhy5k1k]second one[/url:2rhy5k1k] contains the answers of the factions to ten questions. I know the questions could be different, but those were mine. CARE answers to the questionnaire didn't arrived.

I insist this is an unofficial guide.

[Flyingroc Chung]

This is excellent! It is too bad that CARE did not participate; though it does look like there will be many areas of cooperation between the factions next term.

[Flyingroc Chung]

Hi I noticed something about the borda-count description that is not accurate:

[quote:3gg1kchk]
So, if we have four factions the first faction gets 1 vote, the second 0.33, the third 0.25 and the fourth 0 (the maths behind this are slightly different, but the effects are the same).
[/quote:3gg1kchk]

This isn't quite right. The points given for each ranking under the old Ulrika regime was (n - r) / (n - 1). Where n is the number of factions, and r is the rank of the faction. That is, for 4 factions, the best ranked gets 1 point, 2nd place gets 2/3 points, third place gets 1/3 points, and last place gets 0 points.

My own improvement to this is to normalize it simply to (n-r). Best ranked gets 3 points, 2nd place gets 2 points, 3rd place gets one point, and last place gets no points. Ulrika's scheme and mine are equivalent in the sense that both will result in the same faction allocation using the Sainte-Lague method. My scheme however results in the totals being integers rather than fractional.

Unfortunately, Fernando's weightings are different, and could result in a different faction allocation. Fernando *did* contact me to ask how the borda count weighting worked, and I'm afraid my explanation to him was inadequate. I apologize for that.

[Fernando Book]

FR,

You didn't have to apologize. I read your answer, which is correct, but I wrote from heart the Borda count explanation; that lead to the mistake.

I'm very sorry.

[michelmanen]

I am sorry. I didnt have the time to do it. I had some RL issues (like my family's health) which also required my attention. I shall attempt to post the CARE answers to your questions as soon as possible.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

No need to apologise I'm sure but couldn't one of the 14 other active members of CARE maybe have taken it upon him/herself to do it? I was under the impression that you have a very inclusive approach to formulating policy? Well, so far all we have seen of CARE in the forums remains a one main show. I think the voters would like to see more of the other candidates in the forums also to get a better impression of how the conditions for a spirit of cooperation in a coming RA for example.

[michelmanen]

Believe me, I personally also look forward to the same things as you do and I am certain they will come about in due course...