Difference between revisions of "User talk:Bilby"

From Wikimedia Australia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(reply)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Hi, I don't understand your edit-summary upon removing the table of preferential rounds for the ord. members. [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] 20:27, 7 December 2012 (EST)
 
Hi, I don't understand your edit-summary upon removing the table of preferential rounds for the ord. members. [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] 20:27, 7 December 2012 (EST)
 
:I'm not sure on the best approach. :) The reason was because the count was done with multiple models, but I'm only showing the results of one. That might lead people to assume that the count only holds using that model. But I'm not worried as to the best approach - I'm just as happy to leave it in. I'll do that, and then if people want to raise questions about models, I'll give them the results using those. The difficulty with STV is the sheer number of counting models open to you and variations that are available. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] 20:29, 7 December 2012 (EST)
 
:I'm not sure on the best approach. :) The reason was because the count was done with multiple models, but I'm only showing the results of one. That might lead people to assume that the count only holds using that model. But I'm not worried as to the best approach - I'm just as happy to leave it in. I'll do that, and then if people want to raise questions about models, I'll give them the results using those. The difficulty with STV is the sheer number of counting models open to you and variations that are available. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] 20:29, 7 December 2012 (EST)
 +
::OK, thanks, Bilby. I must say, I learnt from looking at the table. And in your view, should the board determine the best model, down to that level of detail? Also, what would happen if a tied vote (and arbitrary knock-out choice) ''did'' affect the result? [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] 20:47, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 20:47, 7 December 2012

Hi, I don't understand your edit-summary upon removing the table of preferential rounds for the ord. members. Tony1 20:27, 7 December 2012 (EST)

I'm not sure on the best approach. :) The reason was because the count was done with multiple models, but I'm only showing the results of one. That might lead people to assume that the count only holds using that model. But I'm not worried as to the best approach - I'm just as happy to leave it in. I'll do that, and then if people want to raise questions about models, I'll give them the results using those. The difficulty with STV is the sheer number of counting models open to you and variations that are available. - Bilby 20:29, 7 December 2012 (EST)
OK, thanks, Bilby. I must say, I learnt from looking at the table. And in your view, should the board determine the best model, down to that level of detail? Also, what would happen if a tied vote (and arbitrary knock-out choice) did affect the result? Tony1 20:47, 7 December 2012 (EST)