On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Luke Palmer <lrpalmer@gmail.com> wrote:

2009/3/9 Sebastian Sylvan <sebastian.sylvan@gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Sebastian,

Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:08:50 PM, you wrote:

i think we should make 2-stage voting, like in F1

after 1st stage we will know which logos are most popular and
therefore are real candidates, so we can select among them

One of the reasons condorcet voting is good is that this isn't needed. If everyone is consistent in which logos they prefer the results from second voting stage will be identical to just picking the condorcet voting from the first stage.

The interface to the condorcet voting site is actually pretty good (try out one of the samples), so it's pretty easy to just "move to top" the ones you prefer and move the ones you dislike to the bottom. Then you can ignore the vast majority of "don't care" logos in the middle, and just fine tune your ranking at the top and bottom.

With so many candidates, I think a two-stage process would be helpful. For example, what if a variant of a logo I liked ended up being popular, but I missed that one and didn't rank it (not unreasonable, there are a hundred logos). After the top candidates have been selected, I will surely notice it up there.

Of course, introducing multi-stage voting breaks some of the properties we'd like a voting system to have. But, alas, you (provably) can't have it all :-)

Having to vote twice just seems like a lot of extra effort for questionable added benefit. Maybe one vote requires people to be more careful about their rank (though you'd hope that any minor mistakes, such as the one you describe, would be random and therefore roughly cancel out over a few hundred votes), but at least it won't require them to vote twice.