Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyssa
An honest uninfluenced vote. No voting because your friend voted for it, no voting against because your enemy voted for it, no voting because "well its going to win, anyway", nor voting against becuase "well its going to lose anyway".
Also, if we can't see the votes before hand then it should also go without saying that we would not mention the specific book that got our vote. The result would then be a complete surprise for everyone, which I think might even make it more interesting over all.
|
Interesting makes sense to me even if it doesn't persuade me. You like the surprise of not knowing; I can understand that--it's like watching the Oscars. But otherwise I'm uncomfortable with value judgments like "honest" and "fair." There's nothing dishonest with the current system. People make informed votes all the time. In a political election where there's been ample polling, people often pick a less bad candidate who's a serious contender over their ideal candidate who's a no-hoper. It doesn't invalidate the process.
I also think some of the influences you mention are fairly minor. Even if I don't care for a poster, I'm not going to vote against a book s/he's nominated if I want to read it. Nor will I vote for a book nominated by a crony, if I think that person has crappy taste (although obviously s/he must have other sterling qualities!).
I would just like to see a more dispassionate discussion that leaves out fairness and honesty and other loaded terms (with the implication that the opposing camp is in favor of a system neither fair nor honest), and focuses on the concrete advantages and disadvantages of each method.