[eDebate] How I voted for the First-Rounds

repkowil at msu.edu repkowil
Tue May 19 14:37:37 CDT 2009



As I did the first-round balloting (Feb), I included my rationale for each placement. Most of the decisions were based on math, but some were not. 

This is all part of an effort to have a slightly more transparent process -- as well as a follow-up on this post: 

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-January/077568.html[1]

That post explains the system that I (currently) use. 

I am hoping for non-Strega feedback on the system. Plus, I think some people may be interested in seeing how the theory of the system worked-out in practice.

Also, please consider the committee works unlike any other committee I've ever really been on -- there is no "debate" within the committee as to how to rank, what criteria to use, etc. 

I owe a special thanks to Eric Morris of Mo State. He -- like me -- is a "debate rankings dork" of sorts. He helped me realize that the rationale for first-round voting can and should be discussed publicly. We both agreed to post on the subject -- and this is an extension of that joint effort.

The rankings/rationale for each applicant are attached.  

The first two sections are for the math nerds ? the more interesting stuff is where the document starts to say: ??????????????? "Why ranked ranked Kansas 2nd, etc" 


Links:
------
[1] http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-January/077568.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090519/15e2e904/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ag 09 -- How I voted for the first rounds.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 89088 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090519/15e2e904/attachment.doc 



More information about the Mailman mailing list