AW: [Members] Memberbot

Daniel Noll daniel at
Mon Sep 18 20:27:03 CDT 2006

> You could try the method all we european use: paper votes, counted by a
> multiparty "civilian" force. Years ago I was casted as president of my
> local voting point (similar procedure to USA jury casting). The voters
> assigned to my table were about 600, but only voted about 300-400.
> Counting 400 votes takes about 10-15 minutes.

Paper votes aren't entirely free from this sort of problem either, as any
voting-age Australian would know plenty about.

Basically, candidates in Australian elections used to be listed in
alphabetical order, giving preferences to candidates whose name came
earlier alphabetically (that Wikipedia page suggests around 2% of votes
are donkey votes.)  Political parties then attempted to increase their
odds by selecting candidates with names coming earlier alphabetically.

The current system here has the candidates draw lots to determine the
order, however every voter still receives the list of candidates in the
same order, so the donkey votes always go to the winner of the draw.  I
think a better solution would be to either rotate or randomise the
candidates for each voting slip, so that the donkey votes get spread out
over all the candidates somewhat more evenly.

But as you can see, it's a very similar issue to what happened on
memberbot, only donkey voting is the result of a combination of compulsory
voting and apathy, whereas the memberbot issue was more a result of people
not reading the instructions.  Either way I feel the solution might be the
same... that is, if we don't want to restructure the way the actual votes
are cast.


 Jabber: daniel at
  Email: daniel at

More information about the Members mailing list