Originally Posted by JSWolf
you are the one who said that my use of "best" and "fair" are loaded words. So I feel it is up to you to prove your point/disprove mine. "Lemming" is not a loaded word. We have already had people say that they vote based on the votes of others. That would be a lemming vote. The idea is to vote for what a person most wants to read. With a hidden vote, there is no voting based on the current vote tally and there is little to no voting based on what someone else voted for. Sure other things still apply like price and availability as well as wanting to read. But that's a lot more fair then voting based on the votes of others.
OK, let me get this straight. You said:
Given that we have enough proof, we can see that hidden voting is the best and fairest way to do it.
So I said, where/what is the proof? And you say it's up to me to disprove your contention, ie, I have to prove there's no proof? That's ridiculous. I'm not saying there's proof of the opposite, just that I have my reasons for preferring an open vote, which would include not throwing away a vote on a non-contender and because I think an open vote creates interest.
My asking for statistical analysis was a bit tongue in cheek, as the sample size and variable factors don't lend themselves to rigorous analysis, but you've got to come up with something
to support your contention of "proof." Otherwise, not only am I free to disregard your claim, I can't be blamed for suspecting the opposite. If you had
proof, surely you'd provide it.
Lemming is loaded because of the connotation of mindlessness. If someone chooses to vote with or against someone (and I suspect there's little if any of that), it would be because they've noted that their tastes seem either congruent or the opposite of the voter in question.
For all your natterings about fairness and proof, I suspect it boils down to your thinking your own nominations have more of a chance with a closed vote; that a closed vote results in a flatter vote (unproved, note) and that you might be able to sneak one past the goalpost.