Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results [1 Attachment]

Expand Messages
  • Joe Klovance
    Is there a way of getting the raw data for each vote. That way I can do a transferable vote reductions and come out with a better consensus. In a transferable
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 3 9:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Is there a way of getting the raw data for each vote. That way I can do a transferable vote reductions and come out with a better consensus.

      In a transferable vote one knocks out the lowest category and moves those votes to their next selection. Repeat until one selection has the desired percentage (51+% for majority 67+% for super majority).

      Gryffyd


      To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
      From: sirjon1@...
      Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:09:52 -0700
      Subject: [SCA-Archery] Poll results [1 Attachment]

       
      [Attachment(s) from John Edgerton included below]
      The results of the survey for what form a society wide missile group should take are attached below.
      The most support was for some form of treaty based organization.  

      Please let me know if you can not read the attachment. 

      I am leaving today for West/An Tir war and will gone until Monday. 

      Jon

    • Jim Pickette
      I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data. JoO Calontir
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 3 1:26 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data.

        JoO
        Calontir

        ---- Joe Klovance <jklovanc@...> wrote:
        >
        > Is there a way of getting the raw data for each vote. That way I can do a transferable vote reductions and come out with a better consensus.
        >
        > In a transferable vote one knocks out the lowest category and moves those votes to their next selection. Repeat until one selection has the desired percentage (51+% for majority 67+% for super majority).
        >
        > Gryffyd
        >
        > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
        > From: sirjon1@...
        > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:09:52 -0700
        > Subject: [SCA-Archery] Poll results [1 Attachment]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Attachment(s) from John Edgerton included below]
        >
        >
        > The results of the survey for what form a society wide missile group should take are attached below.The most support was for some form of treaty based organization.
        > Please let me know if you can not read the attachment.
        > I am leaving today for West/An Tir war and will gone until Monday.
        > Jon
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Joe Klovance
        In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 3 4:25 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in many polls called a single transferable vote. In this process the the option with the least votes is dropped and the votes are re-counted as if that option never existed. This is repeated until the desired percentage is found or only two options are left. A similar thing can be done by separate polls where the bottom option of each vote is eliminated and another poll is taken. The STV process works under the premises that someone who ranks an option as rank 2 would select that option in the second poll if their number one option was removed after the first poll.

          If no massaging was anticipated then why do a ranked poll? I am doing a spreadsheet which will show all steps. If you would rather not deal with this massaged data then ignore my output.

          Gryffyd
          > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:26:50 -0500
          > From: pickette@...
          > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results
          >
          > I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data.
          >
          > JoO
          > Calontir
          >

        • arion12@q.com
          The results look pretty clear to me as to what is the first choice - let s skip the statistical analysis and move forward with a Treaty. Arion the Wanderer ...
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 3 5:03 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            The results look pretty clear to me as to what is the first choice - let's skip the statistical analysis and move forward with a Treaty.

            Arion the Wanderer


            From: "Christopher LoPresto" <thlaleyn@...>
            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 5:04:48 PM
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Poll results

            Uh... not trying to cause any trouble... but...

            I think if the plan was to drop options and move votes around, then there should have been options in the poll to not rank an option that the voter would not choose under ANY circumstance.  (Maybe this WAS an option in the poll and I just don't remember...).

            In other words, it should have been made clear in the poll description that votes might be 'transferred' and an option given to give any of the available choices a non-rank.  Some people may have a 1 and 2 choice that they are comfortable with, but their 3, 4, and 5 choices may fall into that category of not wanting these choices at all.  These folks may not want their #4 choice used to bolster an option that they were really opposed to.

            My two point five cents worth... :-)

            [Just to be clear... I applaud the effort to run the poll and get to a consensus, but I'm against massaging the data in the manner described.]

            Many thanks,
            Aleyn





            On 3 Jul 2012, at 18:25, Joe Klovance wrote:


            In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in many polls called a single transferable vote. In this process the the option with the least votes is dropped and the votes are re-counted as if that option never existed. This is repeated until the desired percentage is found or only two options are left. A similar thing can be done by separate polls where the bottom option of each vote is eliminated and another poll is taken. The STV process works under the premises that someone who ranks an option as rank 2 would select that option in the second poll if their number one option was removed after the first poll.

            If no massaging was anticipated then why do a ranked poll? I am doing a spreadsheet which will show all steps. If you would rather not deal with this massaged data then ignore my output.

            Gryffyd
            > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:26:50 -0500
            > From: pickette@...
            > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results
            > 
            > I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data.
            > 
            > JoO
            > Calontir
            > 



          • Christopher LoPresto
            Uh... not trying to cause any trouble... but... I think if the plan was to drop options and move votes around, then there should have been options in the poll
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 3 5:04 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Uh... not trying to cause any trouble... but...

              I think if the plan was to drop options and move votes around, then there should have been options in the poll to not rank an option that the voter would not choose under ANY circumstance.  (Maybe this WAS an option in the poll and I just don't remember...).

              In other words, it should have been made clear in the poll description that votes might be 'transferred' and an option given to give any of the available choices a non-rank.  Some people may have a 1 and 2 choice that they are comfortable with, but their 3, 4, and 5 choices may fall into that category of not wanting these choices at all.  These folks may not want their #4 choice used to bolster an option that they were really opposed to.

              My two point five cents worth... :-)

              [Just to be clear... I applaud the effort to run the poll and get to a consensus, but I'm against massaging the data in the manner described.]

              Many thanks,
              Aleyn





              On 3 Jul 2012, at 18:25, Joe Klovance wrote:


              In the poll the respondents were allowed to rank the answers in the order or preference. These ranked answers can then go through a standard process used in many polls called a single transferable vote. In this process the the option with the least votes is dropped and the votes are re-counted as if that option never existed. This is repeated until the desired percentage is found or only two options are left. A similar thing can be done by separate polls where the bottom option of each vote is eliminated and another poll is taken. The STV process works under the premises that someone who ranks an option as rank 2 would select that option in the second poll if their number one option was removed after the first poll.

              If no massaging was anticipated then why do a ranked poll? I am doing a spreadsheet which will show all steps. If you would rather not deal with this massaged data then ignore my output.

              Gryffyd
              > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:26:50 -0500
              > From: pickette@...
              > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Poll results
              > 
              > I suggest sticking to the raw data, rather than over-massaging the data.
              > 
              > JoO
              > Calontir
              > 



            • Joe Klovance
              I have posted the STV manipulated poll, Archery poll.xls in the files section of the Yahoo group, and a few interesting results came out.1. There is a
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 3 6:22 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                I have posted the STV manipulated poll, "Archery poll.xls" in the files section of the Yahoo group, and a few interesting results came out.
                1. There is a majority for "Treaty" but not quite a super majority and it took eliminating all but 2 options to get to a majority.
                2. Even with removing 3 of 5 options over 82% got their first or second option.
                3. Only 2% went to the fourth option.

                I agree that it would have been better if it was clear that one did not have to rank all options. It could have been done so some options could have been left blank. Survey Monkey does not do this well as it can not check that a higher rank is used before a lower rank is used. For example, someone could have voted 2, ,4, ,5. That would require a first pass to normalize the data so that a vote like that would come out 1, ,2, ,3 as that is the priority order.

                Having said that I believe that the poll even after the STV manipulation has a valid result.

                Gryffyd
              • Hugh Prescott
                In other words Reducto Abservium Hugh
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 4 1:57 PM
                • 0 Attachment

                  In other words  "Reducto Abservium"

                  Hugh
                   




                • Ld.blackmoon
                  greetings ... lol, sounds like a new diet pill : ) Be Safe , Be Happy, Have Fun . Arthur ... From: Hugh Prescott To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 4 2:33 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    greetings
                     
                    >>"Reducto Abservium"<<
                     lol, sounds like a new diet pill : )
                     
                    Be Safe , Be Happy, Have Fun .
                    Arthur
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:57 PM
                    Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Poll results

                     


                    In other words  "Reducto Abservium"

                    Hugh
                     




                    No virus found in this message.
                    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5091 - Release Date: 06/24/12
                    Internal Virus Database is out of date.

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.