It doesn't make any sense to ask people to vote for a slate you know will lose. Unless the reasons that the 1-14 are going to win are reversible everyone voting your slate has to ask why they are doing it? As strong as your instincts might be toward actual integrity in journalism publishing this list prior would be a mistake. This is related to your earlier post on Transparency and being transparent. It makes particular sense if instead of considering yourself the boss you consider yourself the employee in this instance --- coming from your example. Voters that want to vote for you don't want their candidate predicting a loss.And it's a fair criticism. As I've already said, much of the list of candidates that I endorsed is somewhat political. Know what? Every other endorsement list you see is going to operate the same way. Here's why, from my perspective.
The alternative to pointing people at good candidates who are likely to lose is to strengthen the bloc vote, something that it would be a dumb idea for me to do. Let's say I endorse some good bloc candidates (and there are some). The way STV operates, if people follow that suggestion and vote for those good bloc candidates, that reduces the number of bloc votes that those good bloc candidates need to get on the CSM. The bloc votes that would otherwise go to them instead flow directly to bad bloc candidates (and there are some), increasing the likelihood that they'll be on the CSM, too!
It is therefore a dumb idea for me to endorse bloc candidates -- even good bloc candidates -- for two reasons:
- I reduce the chances that good candidates that are not bloc candidates get on the CSM; and,
- I increase the chances that bad bloc candidates -- that otherwise would not be elected! -- get on the CSM in their place.
Thanks to everyone who is considering my CSM8 endorsement list!
EDIT (4/Apr/2013): There has been even more controversy about non-bloc candidates refusing to endorse bloc candidates. This includes Xander Phoena who did the absolutely heroic interviews of all the candidates. So I want to expand on my answer a bit:
For myself, I didn't endorse a bloc candidate because of the way STV works. The bloc candidates on the high end (mynnna, for instance) are going to get ALL the bloc votes: he'll have Mittens's 10k votes and then some if he needs them. Therefore, the votes mynnna *doesn't need* (like any high-sec player that votes for him) will filter down to less impressive bloc candidates.Remember how I said the bloc votes would work the same way? Sure enough, it looks like they're going to. Here's what mynnna himself had to say about the issue (in the comments of Xander's blog post):
So non-intuitively, every non-bloc vote that mynnna gets doesn't do
anything at all to improve mynnna's chances and doesn't go to mynnna. Instead, it improves the chances of these second- and third-tiers and goes to them.
Maybe everyone playing political games from all sides will cancel out and we'll get a decent CSM composition.And somewhat ironically, I think that might just be possible.