Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/21/13 in all areas

  1. Great article in this mornings Boston Globe: "Boston's Olympic Challenge" http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/21/olympic-committee-courts-smaller-cities/A95fknKYVufUKASsWDuuLK/story.html
    1 point
  2. I actually think it is possible. The preferential voting system that is now in place for the best picture Oscar would have worked well for Olympic races. Here's how it works: There are no longer voting rounds. There is just one vote. Each voter ranks all the candidates honestly from first to last. (There is nothing to be gained by giving a top competitor an artificially low-ranking as will be explained shortly.) To tabulate the votes, a pile of ballots is created for each one of the contenders. All the ballots ranking Rio first go in one pile. All the ballots ranking Madrid first go in another pile, and so on. The candidate receiving the fewest number one rankings is eliminated and those ballots' second place rankings then kick into effect and are added to the piles of the remaining cities. This elimination process continues until one candidate has 50% plus one of the total number of ballots cast. Just as with the Academy Awards, the final announcement proclaims which city won and does not need to enumerate the vote tabulation. Because of the way the system is set up, it is in each voter's best interests to rank the cities honestly. Only the number one vote is counted until that city is eliminated, at which point the number two choice kicks in and so on. It really is a fair way to reach a true consensus. Of course, Chicago still might've been eliminated first if it received the fewest number one rankings, but by eliminating the rounds and instituting preferential voting instead, there is no reason for this elimination to be made public. No one apart from the handful of people tabulating the votes would ever know. All that must be announced is the winner.
    1 point
  3. If true, that raises an interesting point. Does the IOC's voting system inherently work against its own interests. Could a voting system be devised which provided the same outcome (Rio 2016) but which wouldn't have left a sour taste in Chicago? I can't think of one off the top of my head to be honest. If you end up with a small share of the vote you end up with a small share of the vote. But the sheer shock and drama of "going out first" seems to be the thing that hurt more than the rejection. So could a voting system be devised that didn't lead to the outright dejection Chicagoans felt, one that had it been in place would now see us talking about Chicago 2024?
    1 point
  4. Um, ever heard of innocent until proven otherwise? He says this was an accident, tragic and unintended. So, if the prosecution believes he murdered this woman, they need to prove it. Hearing evidence at the bail hearing, leaves more questions than answers. And there seems to be lots of inconsistencies with the prosecutions version of events. I'm not saying Pistorius is innocent, as I don't possess all the facts, but he should be given a fair trial. Either way, his career is over.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...