Don't Limit Votes (promote fair voting)
UPDATE:
Despite the liberal use of hyperbolic politicized speech (including a Donald Trump reference), near-meaningless jargon and an overcomplicated mathematical formula, this proposal appears to have been taken serious by everyone who replied (including the website operator).
To be perfectly clear, the purpose of this proposal is not to promote weighted voting, which could've been easily explained in clear terms with no formula whatsoever.
Rather, the purpose was to determine whether users would accept a proposal that they (most likely) do not understand , so long as it ensured unlimited voting. The answer so far appears to be "No". This is in fact good news, as it shows that the majority of users have at least bothered to concern themselves with the proposal instead of mindlessly upvoting it.
Whether users prefer weighted voting over limited voting should be determined in a more serious proposal. I still believe that when facing the choice between the two, users would rather go for weighting.
ORIGINAL TEXT:
As we all know, users don't like limitations, so why should somebody , somewhere arbitrarily limit their right to vote on absolutely everything they want? Some might go as far as arguing that such a limitation goes against the very spirit of open source software itself.
I suggest we instead employ the same mathematics that are used in free democratic elections in leading countries around the world: Elemental Algebra. The provided formula ensures a FREE, FAIR and EQUAL distribution of proposal votes over a population of N users:
where:
- v(i) = 1 if the user i voted for the proposal, 0 otherwise ( ONE user ONE vote , no matter WHO they are!)
- N is the total amount of users
- C[i] is the amount of seconds passed between midnight January 1st 1970 and the time user i created their account
- V[i] is the total amount of votes cast by user i
- t is the amount of seconds passed between midnight January 1st 1970 and the moment the query is evaluated
Also note the FAIR use of the gamma function to find a reasonable reciprocal to define the unit vote.
Don't worry if you're not a math person, just be assured that this approach ensures UNLIMITED VOTES . I am also willing to offer FREE consulting to the website operators on how to implement this formula in their code.
VOTE UP TO SUPPORT FREE AND FAIR UNLIMITED VOTING FOREVER. MAKE RIGHTCLICKSELECT.COM FAIR AGAIN!
4 Comments
Could you explain in plain english what the equation does? You say that it ensures unlimited votes, but what exactly does it do?
If I simply could tell you in plain english what exactly the equation does, I would've done that instead of writing up an equation. The whole point of algebraic equations is to define something exactly that isn't expressible in plain english.
To say it (again) in plain english: This equation defines a FAIR distribution of UNLIMITED votes for ALL users .
What I was looking for was something like the fallowing:
Or to simplify: If users cast a lot of votes, the weight of each vote goes down. As more time goes by, the weight of each vote goes up.
See, that wasn’t too hard ;)
Also, could you explain what the deal is with this snippet?
Near as I can tell, the top part evaluates to 1 and the bottom part evaluates to a really big number (130189.494785 to be exact, which is the same as ‘(e*pi)!’). So the whole thing evaluates to a really small number (7.681111303576674e-6 or 0.00000768111). I guess the point is to let the vote weight rejuvenate faster? Why not just hard code in a number like 7.6e-6?
Other users of this site may not need to understand it, but if I'm to implement something like this on this site, then I do . As such, this discussion has been helpful.