Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2009/Results/en

Pre-announcement discussion[edit]

Any idea what time the results are due? Privatemusings 12:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12 August UTC. No time has been specified. Daniel (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the existing timeline. Cbrown1023 talk 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight, then? Or later in the day? Surely, you can understand our curiosity.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have patience. The last minute glitches with strikings suggest to me that the results may be a bit late. The initial time frame was probably too short: All the striking must really be done and final before the votes are counted, otherwise if the strikes influence the result it could be argued that the decision to make them was influenced by the known result. (Some of the pairs in the 2008 election had gaps as small as 8 votes, so its not inconceivable that striking could influence the outcome) --Gmaxwell 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me is patient, but can't ever figure out how to tell the UTC time without signing ;-) Privatemusings 09:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use the handy clock in Preferences, personally. Daniel (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that, or worldclock is your friend :) -- phoebe 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, lowly serfs. The successful cover-up of a rigged election takes a little time and finesse. You will be pleased with the results. These are not the droids you're looking for. -- Thekohser 13:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election fraud, oh why oh why didn't *I* think of that. It would have saved me SOOOOOOO much time.

Kohs, that's unacceptable and disruptive. I think you owe everyone who worked hard (and neutrally, and giving up their own suffrage in the process) an apology. --Philippe 15:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the jesting was clear, Philippe, what with the "droid" reference (from Star Wars) and everything. Thanks for calling me by my last name, though. That has an authoritative tone to it. -- Thekohser 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second... Election committee volunteers had to give up their right to vote in the election? As far as I know, there's not a democratic society in the world where election officials or precinct captains are denied suffrage. Is there any precedent for this needless sacrifice? -- Thekohser 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Canadian Chief Electoral Officer is not entitled to vote in Canadian federal elections. Sarcasticidealist 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to avoid appearances of bias on the part of the committee. In the real world, there are far more than just a few people involved in counting/verifying votes, so the issue is not as large as it is in our (comparatively) extremely small situation. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy is correct. Election officials willingly surrender suffrage while they serve on the committee. I have never, in fact, voted for one of these elections, though this is my third one. The idea is that a committee official who advocated on behalf of a candidate would create (at the very least) the appearance of impropriety. It's a good rule, and one that I supported and continue to support. --Philippe 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I've found this page helpful too: Board elections/2009/Committee/en. Cbrown1023 talk 04:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations on your win, Wing, Kat and Samuel. I was curious how the field would be ranked, and I think the voters did a good job in their assessments. --David Shankbone 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A margin table?[edit]

Can we get a margin table? I.e. where the values show the difference between pairs rather than their absolute values? This can be generated from the existing table, but it's a pain to machine-read the markup.

I.e. here is a margin table I calculated from the 2008 raw ballots (using a script that works on raw ballots):

           A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H     I     J     K     L     M     N     O
A          X  -169   363   229   654   -90   118   434   479   591   134   129  -160   139  -461
B        169     X   536   400   824   148   263   599   611   753   287   350    22   334  -242
C       -363  -536     X  -121   354  -477  -267   126    94   266  -234  -217  -521  -219  -790
D       -229  -400   121     X   488  -299  -103   278   267   387   -78   -34  -358   -35  -653
E       -654  -824  -354  -488     X  -689  -586  -274  -262  -213  -520  -559  -749  -546 -1010
F         90  -148   477   299   689     X   137   528   538   645   190   208  -112   192  -377
G       -118  -263   267   103   586  -137     X   389   378   479    -8    71  -271    48  -530
H       -434  -599  -126  -278   274  -528  -389     X   -19   113  -291  -327  -571  -303  -839
I       -479  -611   -94  -267   262  -538  -378    19     X   156  -317  -364  -604  -333  -834
J       -591  -753  -266  -387   213  -645  -479  -113  -156     X  -429  -495  -716  -418  -974
K       -134  -287   234    78   520  -190     8   291   317   429     X   -28  -300   -40  -553
L       -129  -350   217    34   559  -208   -71   327   364   495    28     X  -254    11  -571
M        160   -22   521   358   749   112   271   571   604   716   300   254     X   317  -208
N       -139  -334   219    35   546  -192   -48   303   333   418    40   -11  -317     X  -540
O        461   242   790   653  1010   377   530   839   834   974   553   571   208   540     X

It's useful because it makes it clear how close or how far a particular pair is, i.e. in that table O was preferred to A by 461 more voters than preferred A to O...--Gmaxwell 19:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raw data?[edit]

Might we see the raw data, such as last year? How many valid ballots were cast? This is the best way to discover the percentage of voters who selected a particular candidate as 1st, 1st or 2nd, or 1st or 2nd or 3rd... which is helpful to know. -- Thekohser 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there will be a raw data dump. For disclosure purposes, I am no longer a member of the committee, so that I can focus on other priorities, and I may be out of date. --Philippe 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to wonder why it would take over two weeks after election polling closed to produce a raw data dump. -- Thekohser 17:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on result details[edit]

If I understand correctly, the pairwise victory matrix constitutes the definitive results. Looking at that, it would appear that there have been some transcription errors in compiling the "path strength matrix". Can somebody confirm and correct that?

Also, that's not a phrase I'm familiar with, and even knowing the principles of how the vote is ranked, it's not especially obvious what it means. Could a little explanation be provided? --Michael Snow 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, that was compiled by TimStarling, but I'll point him here. --Philippe 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]