Term 3 Voting Now Open!

[Blaza612]

typo?

Possibly :p

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Hello! For people asking why I removed my application for this term. I just got a full time job and I dont wanna go nuts trying to do as much as I did in the past,for both council and youtube

Bummer and congratulations on the new job.

 

[Valck]

The limited session timer and your own recommendation to go ahead and vote/save/redo to keep the session active encourages not paying too much attention to the initial voting, as it suggests one could always go back and fine-tune their votes later, but I think there's a bug in the verification algorithm that prevents exchanging candidates' positions.

Say I voted candidate N for position 12 and candidate U for position 19, and now want to swap their positions so N=19 and U=12; the voting software tells me I can't because "This preference conflicts with another candidate".
It looks like the algorithm goes through the candidates in their randomized sort order, sees candidate N has been assigned to 19, but fails to look on and thinks that candidate U is still occupying slot 19 when it has actually been made available.

 

[kiraen]

I had the same problem, but I found it cleared one confict each time I resaved, so I just kept resaving.

 

[Valck]

I had the same problem, but I found it cleared one confict each time I resaved, so I just kept resaving.

The thing is, there is only one "conflict" (false positive), involving two candidates, and because of that it doesn't allow me to save at all...

EDIT: In fact, when I have correctly adjusted both candidates' positions, the "submit" button turns green and becomes clickable, as it should. However when I then actually click to submit my changes, after calculating for a moment it tells me "some of my preferences couldn't be saved" because of the perceived "conflict".

EDIT2:

 

[kiraen]

Change the numbers, change them back.

 

[Valck]

Change the numbers, change them back.

That's not going to help - I can change the numbers in the input fields no problem, and I can even submit the changes, but it then reverts my changes and tells me there is a conflict where clearly there is none. You'll also notice the site suggests I re-submit, but at the same time, the submit button is greyed out and inactive...

 

[kiraen]

I don't know then. That's what I did to fix the problem and it worked for me.

 

[Valck]

Guess it can't be helped; voting is supposed to have closed by now. I do hope it gets fixed for the next election.
[DOUBLEPOST=1464313345,1464312026][/DOUBLEPOST]Another concern I have after reading the linked PDF on tie-breaking is how "strong ties" are going to be resolved when voters are required to rank every candidate.

In the PDF, there's the case where candidates B and C are tied with 20 votes each but both get eliminated and candidate A wins with ten direct votes plus the transferred votes, over candidate F with 11 direct but zero transferable votes. If all voters had to have given a preference for F, F would have won hands down although the majority obviously didn't want to see F elected.

Since the council voting site requires that all candidates be given a vote, it seems to me that people may get elected against the will of the majority.

 

[Lecic]

You don't have to vote for everyone.

 

[Valck]

You don't have to vote for everyone.

It didn't look like that to me. When there are candidates without vote, the submit button was greyed out with a hint stating "Missing preference: x", or "Duplicate preferences: y".

Of course, now that I have given a rank to every candidate, there's no way to set any candidate to a value outside 1-22.

 

[DukeofRealms]

It didn't look like that to me. When there are candidates without vote, the submit button was greyed out with a hint stating "Missing preference: x", or "Duplicate preferences: y".

You don't have to add a vote for every candidate. Those errors are if you are missing a vote in-between, for example, 1,2,3,4,6,7. Missing 5 would bring that error up. It would be ridiculous if you had to add a preference next to every candidate.

Guess it can't be helped; voting is supposed to have closed by now. I do hope it gets fixed for the next election.

This has already been fixed in the latest version of the council site. Changes weren't pushed due to being too close to closing, running the risk of compromising already submitted votes (it was a large code change). The council site was never developed to be able to change preference orders, we added that functionality in a day before elections began to avoid timeout issues.

To circumvent this issue, one had to clear all votes and submit, then renumber them in the desired order. Or, clear all votes onwards and resubmit. For example, if you wished to switch 13 to 14, you'd need to clear 13 and upwards, submit and then reorder.

Numbering above 10 preferences, would be pointless (7 is actually more than enough). If you wish to switch your votes around, you can PM (before 3 PM UTC, 27/05/16) me and I will manually change it.

 

[Valck]

It would be ridiculous if you had to add a preference next to every candidate.

My thoughts exactly, but oh well...

This has already been fixed in the latest version of the council site.

Thanks, looking forward to the next round then.

 

[therimmer96]

Any clue when the results will be announced?

 

[Valck]

Any clue when the results will be announced?

We plan to release results on the 29th of May after we have contacted the election winners and signed all necessary agreements.

 

[therimmer96]

Whoops ^_^