How to get people to vote

Author: DynamicSquid

Posts

Total: 42
#31
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
One that immediately comes to mind, is peoples addiction to complaining. 
We're never going to stop the complaints, and that isn't the aim of weighted voting anyway. So we get the same complaining, but a better, more inclusive system.

They would cry at someone else having given the other side one more point than them, not all votes are equal, blah blah blah
Of course they will, but, just like Hillery and the electoral college, everyone knew and agreed to the rules before the voting. Such complaints can be ignored.

Another problem I do foresee is increased complaints over fakers, in addition to complaints like... Ragnar's not a liberal, he's a progressive, his vote should do this instead...
This is a good point, but that can be put to rest if we set up the rules properly, so that everyone is clear on which positions do what, and the points each position gives to any other position.

So the case of "A vote by a conservative for a conservative gets the conservative debater one vote point." Wouldn't always make sense, when the conservative debater is arguing against a conservative viewpoint...
First, if the conservative is playing devils advocate, he is likely to get fewer conservative votes and more nonconservative votes (vice a versa for the liberal), but he is probably going to be less comfortable arguing against his natural position and thus will be less convincing. It balances out. We are trying to get members to vote on the arguments and not on their political leanings. One side playing devils advocate would be great for that.

But due to political positions having to be stated, no one could play devils advocate incognito. 

I don't think this will be a major or even a common issue in a weighted system.

You have given this thought! : )
#32
sylweb
sylweb's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 8
0
0
1
sylweb's avatar
sylweb
0
0
1
-->
@ethang5
I think removing bias will be an important part of creating a better voting system. In deciding how best to reduce bias, however, we must recognize that our judgment of how biased everyone else is is dependent on what our own biases are. Realistically, people do vote partially according to their biases, but it's not going to be as extreme as your proposition of a total left-wing domination of DART would make it seem.

Creating a voting system where people would get bigger votes if they vote against their own opinions seems, on the surface, to make some sense. However, linking it to the personal views of the debaters themselves might not be the best idea. Debaters often play Devil's advocate and may hold maverick views. Such a system would also harm the fairness of debates not relating to politics, leaving it to random chance. (e.g. a conservative and a liberal hold a joke debate about croissants. The conservative makes the better arguments. 3 people vote for the conservative and 2 for the liberal. All 5 people happen to be conservative. The conservative loses 3-4.) If we do choose to implement this idea, it should be on an opt-in basis.

A better system might be to make the voting system easier with web 2.0 technologies. In this system, the voter would get to highlight, mark up, and add comments to the debate so he doesn't have to summarize everything, and we could even use certain metrics (e.g. level of detail of the justifications) to change the worth of votes and reduce bias.
#33
Inferno
Inferno's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 23
0
0
4
Inferno's avatar
Inferno
0
0
4
-->
@DynamicSquid
Give us something interesting to vote on then.  
#34
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@sylweb
I dealt with your objections in my previous posts. 

The conservative makes the better arguments.
Well, the voters decide who make the better argument. If you can just ignore the voters, why have them vote at all?

3 people vote for the conservative and 2 for the liberal. All 5 people happen to be conservative. The conservative loses 3-4.
As he should. The liberal convinced two people with an opposing view. That is how weighted votes work.

A better system might be to make the voting system easier with web 2.0 technologies. 
That is an innovative idea! And I know Mike would love it... but the work it would take, and the difficulty of getting voters to understand and use the system would be counter-productive.

The simple weighted voting system does the same thing without the tech whiz bang. And we can always implement the the more technical system at a later date  when Mike has more time.

If we do choose to implement this idea, it should be on an opt-in basis. 
I agree.
#35
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
If we auto-lossed forfeits, concessions, and banned debaters then voters would have to focus non-automatic decisions if they wanted  increased voting stats or rep

#36
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,879
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@oromagi
You don't want to see some of the frequent votes before we added BoP requirements to vote a tie...
#37
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,403
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
If we auto-lossed forfeits, concessions, and banned debaters then voters would have to focus non-automatic decisions if they wanted  increased voting stats or rep 
I will probably work on those once I am done with the stuff that I'm working on now. But we'll need to discuss them first because there can be some edge cases or objections. 
#38
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Barney
I’m sure.   I don’t get the hesitation to implement auto-loss. Right now, there are maybe only 5 or 6 debates that aren’t a foregone conclusion based on forfeits and concessions. Almost all the super long voting periods are foregone conclusions. 

#39
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,879
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@oromagi
I was recently trying to put my finger on that term. Foregone conclusions. Thanks!

I remain hopeful we'll get some auto loss features in the future, but in the mean time, I think that would be a good category for the COC revisions, to lump a few things together (hopefully including No Contest debates).
#40
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
This is an obvious point, but one which seemingly is lost on many...

You do not need "perspectives" on debate judging.  You either win, or you lose.  If you're a Republican and you give the win to your guy because you agree with that side, you are a bad judge.  If you are a Democrat and you vote against a Republican because you disagree with him, you're a bad judge.

These things should be so obvious they need not even be stated, but with any discussion of voting based on political affiliation... it has to be said. 

This is sad and should not be the case... but here we are.    
#41
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@coal
These things should be so obvious they need not even be stated, but with any discussion of voting based on political affiliation... it has to be said.  

This is sad and should not be the case... but here we are.  
Which is precisely why we cannot remove all restrictions.
#42
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DynamicSquid
Should there be a mandatory requirement for people to vote let's say every 3 days?
If you want voting to occur then yes. 
What encourages people to vote?
I guessed they liked the debate so they thought it was worth voting on. There are other reasons of course.
I'll be voting at least once per day, and you guys should do the same.
Nope. Boring and not worthwhile.