[Archived] Rovers Trust/Action Group/Ians

[Mike E]

Christ, what a shambles. Will need another election if not careful!

[J*B]

Just now, MCMC1875 said:

I understand that some duplicate votes have not yet been discounted.

Bloody hell. For the love of god, hire all 7!

[Ozz]

17 hours ago, MCMC1875 said:

I understand that some duplicate votes have not yet been discounted.

For the record, this is incorrect. From the Trust website.

 

During a routine audit of the election polling results, a small number member ID's showing duplicate voting sessions were discovered.

Upon further investigation, it was discovered that an erroneous setting in the election poll set up could in some cases allow for duplicate voting sessions from a single membership account, if a browser had cookie or pop-up blockers active.

This issue was immediately rectified, and upon verification of the raw data, all members showing duplicate voting sessions were then contacted via email to confirm which of their duplicate sessions they would like to count as their votes. All contacted members have responded via email with positive confirmation, and the live election poll results have been adjusted to reflect only their confirmed votes. See the current results or register your vote here. (don't forget to log in first!)

It should be stressed that there is no reason to believe that any intentional or malicious wrong doing was involved. There are several legitimate reasons for a duplicate voting session to have registered given the circumstances. As indicated above, those circumstances have been fixed.

Regular and routine audits of the polling will of course continue through the polling period, and to verify the final results.

[Ozz]

[Stuart]

Hardly anything between Steve and Mick. Out of interest, how many votes were cast?

[Ozz]

Michael, John, Myself and Steven have already had an initial meeting to discuss the recruitment of extended board members and the strategy for the next 12 months. 

[Ozz]

Just now, Stuart said:

Hardly anything between Steve and Mick. Out of interest, how many votes were cast?

i think about 70 something people voted Stuart.

[Sparks Rover]

Judging by the dodgy duplicate voting and the very small electorate, and the very small distance between 4th and 5th place, you should do a new vote properly.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Ozz said:

i think about 70 something people voted Stuart.

Just 70 people voted? Why a low turnout?

How many members does the trust have? 

[Stuart]

19 minutes ago, Ozz said:

Not trying to be clever or anything Ozz but can you explain how the above percentages are calculated? Michael Doherty didn't get 62.7% of the 70 (280) votes, for instance.

[AndyNeil]

each member had UPTO 4 votes each, so if some people only used 1, 2 or 3 then that would make it very difficult to calculate how many actual votes each person got - unless of course you are the person who has access to the voting data.

[Stuart]

Just now, AndyNeil said:

each member had UPTO 4 votes each, so if some people only used 1, 2 or 3 then that would make it very difficult to calculate how many actual votes each person got - unless of course you are the person who has access to the voting data.

Surely, it's as simple as counting up the total number of votes each candidate received and dividing that by the overall total?

Cant quite work out why there are such high percentages for each candidate. I'm probably missing something obvious because none of the other 69 people who voted seem that bothered.

[AndyNeil]

I can explain it in my head, but putting it down in words is somewhat more difficult.  I guess it would have been easier just to put the number of votes each candidate received.

As a side note, its a pretty sad indictment on the Rovers Trust given the very low numbers of people voting in the election - unless you were very engaged in the whole process it was difficult to find information about it. IIRC the Facebook and Twitter pages had virtually zero information about it and unless you are on here, I'm not sure how else you would have known about it if unless A, you check your junkmail for the e-mail B, that's if you even have the same e-mail address with which you registered.

I think the phrase is "lessons to learn" for future elections...

[Michael Doherty]

The percentages relate to the proportion of people voting not the total number of votes cast, i.e. 62% of the people voting cast a vote for me, 57% for John etc. 

[Ozz]

Just now, Stuart said:

Surely, it's as simple as counting up the total number of votes each candidate received and dividing that by the overall total?

Cant quite work out why there are such high percentages for each candidate. I'm probably missing something obvious because none of the other 69 people who voted seem that bothered.

The percentage is an expression of individual votes received against total votes. EG. If 70 people voted, if 43 people voted for you then tat would be 63%, allowing for rounding.

[Ozz]

The ratio between people wanting to help/be involved in the Trust and those wanting to moan about how crap it is is amazing.

[Dunnfc]

Just now, AndyNeil said:

I can explain it in my head, but putting it down in words is somewhat more difficult.  I guess it would have been easier just to put the number of votes each candidate received.

As a side note, its a pretty sad indictment on the Rovers Trust given the very low numbers of people voting in the election - unless you were very engaged in the whole process it was difficult to find information about it. IIRC the Facebook and Twitter pages had virtually zero information about it and unless you are on here, I'm not sure how else you would have known about it if unless A, you check your junkmail for the e-mail B, that's if you even have the same e-mail address with which you registered.

I think the phrase is "lessons to learn" for future elections...

Indeed which goes to show what a job those elected and the co-opted onto the Trust will have in re-building it personally.

[J*B]

41 minutes ago, Ozz said:

The ratio between people wanting to help/be involved in the Trust and those wanting to moan about how crap it is is amazing.

In which case, surely you can understand why I keep pushing for the remaining people who put themselves forward but didn't get enough votes should be given roles regardless? 

[Stuart]

Thanks chaps. It's just the way you've expressed the results that was confusing me. Counting (and sharing) voters rather than votes.

The end result is the same but it could have been simpler.

It's taken about 10 minutes but out of curiosity - and a loose end - I've reverse engineered the voting. Because of the low turnout, one vote can make a big difference, particularly further down the pecking order.

In the interests of debate (?) I believe the data was as follows:

75 voters, with only 233 votes cast out of a possible 75 x 4 (or 300 maximum possible votes). As a result 67 potential votes were not used - nothing wrong with this of course. People did not have to choose 4 people so presumably they were happy with whomever made the final cut as long as one or two people did. Not good form though and it means that one voter is not a representative unit of measure because they aren't equal IMHO.

On this basis, the results (by my calculations, including % of votes cast) are as follows:

- Michael Doherty, 47 votes (20.2%)

- John Murray, 43 votes (18.5%)

- Ozz Jones, 34 votes (14.6%)

- Steve Bradley, 32 votes (13.7%)

- Mick Cahill, 31 votes (13.3%)

- Steve Mack, 29 votes (12.4%)

- Duncan Miller, 17 votes (7.3%)

It does put things into perspective in that one vote decided 4th and 5th and two votes decided 5th and 6th.

Nothing at all wrong with the voting, no suggestion of anything untoward. It does put an interesting slant on the outcome. It would have been interesting had 4 votes been mandatory rather than optional.

If anyone wants to check my maths please feel free.

[Ozz]

Just now, J*B said:

In which case, surely you can understand why I keep pushing for the remaining people who put themselves forward but didn't get enough votes should be given roles regardless? 

Of course.

[Dunnfc]

Won't be just the newly appointed members of the trust but it will need newly supportive back members, a chance for everyone to get involved.

trust is at its lowest ebb so it needs revitalising don't expect miracles to happen overnight but I'm pretty assured that it will get there.

great foundations left but massive scope to kick on

[Mike Graham]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

Thanks chaps. It's just the way you've expressed the results that was confusing me. Counting (and sharing) voters rather than votes.

The end result is the same but it could have been simpler.

It's taken about 10 minutes but out of curiosity - and a loose end - I've reverse engineered the voting. Because of the low turnout, one vote can make a big difference, particularly further down the pecking order.

In the interests of debate (?) I believe the data was as follows:

75 voters, with only 233 votes cast out of a possible 75 x 4 (or 300 maximum possible votes). As a result 67 potential votes were not used - nothing wrong with this of course. People did not have to choose 4 people so presumably they were happy with whomever made the final cut as long as one or two people did. Not good form though and it means that one voter is not a representative unit of measure because they aren't equal IMHO.

On this basis, the results (by my calculations, including % of votes cast) are as follows:

- Michael Doherty, 47 votes (20.2%)

- John Murray, 43 votes (18.5%)

- Ozz Jones, 34 votes (14.6%)

- Steve Bradley, 32 votes (13.7%)

- Mick Cahill, 31 votes (13.3%)

- Steve Mack, 29 votes (12.4%)

- Duncan Miller, 17 votes (7.3%)

It does put things into perspective in that one vote decided 4th and 5th and two votes decided 5th and 6th.

Nothing at all wrong with the voting, no suggestion of anything untoward. It does put an interesting slant on the outcome. It would have been interesting had 4 votes been mandatory rather than optional.

If anyone wants to check my maths please feel free.

Who won:  Remoaners or Brexs**t?  Can the Mods please redirect this to the Brexit thread.

 

[AndyNeil]

7 hours ago, Ozz said:

The ratio between people wanting to help/be involved in the Trust and those wanting to moan about how crap it is is amazing.

I hope that wasn't a go at me?

[Paul]

On 15/04/2017 at 8:06 PM, Mike E said:

Christ, what a shambles. Will need another election if not careful!

It was never a shambles but was unfortunately mired by delay and IT issues.

I've met Dan Grabko on several occasions and worked with him for 2-3 years. It would be hard to find a better person to ensure an election was run in a fair and scrupulously open fashion whilst adhering to the organisation's rules and/or constitution. 

[Ozz]

8 hours ago, AndyNeil said:

I hope that wasn't a go at me?

No.