> > Not having done any kind of research on this, my hunch is that a big > factor in this election was name recognition. There are tons of people who > do good work and lead well but are just not easily recognized "household > names" for community members on a global scale, they might be recognized > within their region. Voters should try to get to know the candidates a bit > more, invest an hour and listen to their statements, read about their ideas > and accomplishments. The session at Wikimania was quite useful for this > purpose.
Hi everybody. Florence pointed out well one of the issues, the voting "strategy" is not clear to all. Then I absolutely agree with Matej, both on having regional primaries (it was even hard to engage a minimum of people to vote one time) and visibility . People usually vote for the names they know (and they trust) or the names that are some way standing out in the BoT's activities (committees, communications, statements in Meta etc.) or in the discussions (maybe because they intervened in those discussions, regardless of the fact that - as Paulo said - they are somehow associated with unpopular decisions) related to elections. My two cents, Camelia -- *Camelia Boban (she/her)* *| Java EE Developer |* [email protected] M. +39 3383385545 WikiDonne Chair & Founder | WMF Gender & Climate Change Certified Organizer | NW Europe Grants Committee *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> **| **WikiDonne Project <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne> *| *WikiDonne UG <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* | *WikiDonne APS <https://wikidonne.org/>* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMDC - WMBE - WCS-UG - WGR-UG Member On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 10:19 PM Steven Walling <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 11:51 AM Matej Grochal <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> interesting idea with the regional primaries but I am not sure it is the >> right way. It seems that having more rounds would alienate voters more than >> draw them in. We keep having so many elections. Remember, there would have >> to be elections for the electoral committee that would coordinate the >> primaries in the regions in addition to a central/global election >> committee. And there would have to be a committee to decide how those >> primaries will be run and what the distribution of the regional seats will >> be and so on. But then it is still probably easier and fairer than trying >> to coordinate who will be _the_ candidate that all of one region should >> vote for. And more transparent. >> Not having done any kind of research on this, my hunch is that a big >> factor in this election was name recognition. There are tons of people who >> do good work and lead well but are just not easily recognized "household >> names" for community members on a global scale, they might be recognized >> within their region. Voters should try to get to know the candidates a bit >> more, invest an hour and listen to their statements, read about their ideas >> and accomplishments. The session at Wikimania was quite useful for this >> purpose. >> >> Be well! >> >> Matej >> > > More rounds is significantly more work to coordinate and participate > in, you're 100% right Matej. It's well known that primaries tend to draw > fewer voters than general elections. It's a big drawback. > > Another alternative would be to iterate on the idea of dedicated Board > seats to represent some groups of stakeholders. One of the main issues with > both the current system and the old one (which lumped together all of the > chapter / affiliate seats in one global block) is that *both* systems ended > up just biasing toward candidates from North America or Europe. If the > Board seats allocated to community-elected seats were more granular with > dedicated regional seats—similar to how legislative bodies for a city or > state get broken down into geographic districts—that could help correct for > it, while being realistic about the biases inherent to effectively > participating in the Board or other movement bodies (like English fluency). > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 8:11 PM Steven Walling <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 1:21 AM Bobby Shabangu < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Very interesting conversations here! >>>> >>>> >>>> And indeed I agree with Florence. There really needs to be serious >>>> voter education especially in global South Communities, focusing on how the >>>> transferable voting system works. I went to these elections very worried >>>> about the same thing, raising it sharply during our candidate onboarding >>>> session. >>>> >>>> I was disappointed during WikiIndaba conference to hear a number of the >>>> conference participants wishing me well with the elections adding that they >>>> only voted for me! >>>> >>>> Anyway, we live to fight another day, thanks to everyone who voted >>>> for me - placing me as their top 4 candidate in their vote. And congrats >>>> once again to the elected candidate. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Bobby Shabangu >>>> >>> >>> Rather than just thinking about how to teach voters how to vote, we >>> should consider ways to adjust the process to make it more intuitive to >>> understand. We have the opportunity to do this as part of the Board >>> governance conversation that is collecting feedback now I think? >>> >>> The data is clear that ranking this many candidates is overly complex >>> and many voters won’t do it. The data also reflect real-world confusion in >>> political elections implementing ranked choice voting. >>> >>> The eligibility requirements round did a good job of eliminating a few >>> candidates that would likely not have performed well. We really need to >>> think about ways to decrease the number of candidates to a more reasonable >>> number if we want to increase voter participation. >>> >>> For instance, we could consider regional primaries where we specifically >>> ask voters from a given set of wikis and organizations to nominate 1-2 >>> Board candidates from their combined geographic + language region. It >>> wouldn’t be perfect but with predefined voter participation thresholds and >>> more targeted campaigns, it could make election outreach more effective at >>> driving proportionally greater voting. This kind of equity is why the >>> Global Council idea was brought forth, but we could achieve a similar >>> outcome without creating an entirely new governance body. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/QOAE3G2HJWSXQKR4ML53ZS2FC3JQXQIW/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/35BFRMTHL3P5UXVAZEGIUX25PF5LMEVS/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/5QNERKTIBQUI7Z4YJUZ5VPKN3TJMBH4E/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
