What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 128 Stack Exchange communities.

In keeping with the question from the previous election- Why was this election so (relatively) unpopular?

I thought the election process was certainly better- but the overall votes have dropped even further despite more visits (and shiny badges).

                 Previous    Current    Increase
Voters eligible  72,908      99,626     36.6%
Visited          17,866      19,479      9.0%
Voted            5,004       4,426     -11.6%

I still maintain that there were plenty of great candidates (a win-win situation perhaps) and that ultimately the people who care voted...

but something still didn't click with potential voters?

share|improve this question
14  
More users have died since the last election –  random Jun 20 '12 at 2:24
    
@random you mean most users who voted last time? (as in, had they not died, it might be around 8000ish votes?) –  davidsleeps Jun 20 '12 at 2:25
    
Weird, that doesn't sound right, from what I heard the Primaries votes were way higher than previous elections. Did we get more primary voters than election voters? –  Ben Brocka Jun 20 '12 at 3:08
    
@BenBrocka Probably yes, check my answer, the nomination and primary was all the rage this time... –  Yannis Jun 20 '12 at 3:19
    
Perhaps more interesting: if you check the last 3 elections here stackoverflow.com/election it appears that the number of voters is almost always right around 5000 users regardless of the other stats.... –  Ben Brocka Jun 20 '12 at 3:20
    
If you're not running the asylum, you're an inmate. 'nuff said. –  CodeGnome Jun 20 '12 at 4:38
    
SO is different, but are there comparable statistics from other elections to see if there's a general trend? –  Mark Hurd Jun 22 '12 at 3:39
add comment

4 Answers 4

up vote 22 down vote accepted

My theory is that we had an excellent set of candidates this time, thus the election stopped being interesting after the primary. When 9 or even 10 out of 10 election candidates are perfectly suitable for the role, why vote? I did, but I'll admit I had absolutely no interest in who'd win, all the excitement for me was the nomination and the primary.

There were a couple of changes this election, that may or may have not affected participation:

  1. The system banner was replaced by the community bulletin.

    It was argued that people failed to see the community bulletin, and the system banner would be preferable for such an important event. I'm with Toomai on this one.

  2. Voting badges were introduced.

    From all the wrong reasons to vote, to get a badge is the worst :/

    The reasoning behind Caucus and Constituent was that they'd provide an extra incentive for people to vote, but they didn't seem to fulfil that promise. We'll probably won't get a clear idea of the badges' value until the next election though, as they were introduced mid election and awarded retroactively for past elections and that might have made them less interesting this time. I got a bunch of them for past elections all around Stack Exchange, getting yet another couple for this election was a bit meh.

share|improve this answer
    
My opinion, there were 2 candidates who said thanks to SO users. I voted both of them. –  user188661 Jun 20 '12 at 3:09
13  
@haibison All the candidates were SO users at the time, so saying thanks to SO users was a bit redundant. Word of advice for future elections: concentrate on whether the candidates can actually cope with the role's responsibilities, and not on inane pleasantries. That said, both candidates that thanked the SO users would make excellent moderators. –  Yannis Jun 20 '12 at 3:23
4  
Solution: get more controversial candidates on board. Long-time trolls, sock puppet operators, etc. Hell, pay them to run along until the primaries! –  Pëkka Jun 20 '12 at 13:25
    
@Pekka It seems Stack Exchange took your suggestion seriously. –  Yannis Aug 14 '12 at 10:20
add comment

I'll make a huge assumption that a large number of SO users are like me: they come to SO to find good answers to questions they need answers to right now; they come to SO to maybe find a question or two that they may be able to answer, or vote up, or vote up good answers to those questions.

The moderators, to me, are the wizards behind the curtain, and sometimes I don't want to know how the sausage is made. I'm just happy that things work, thanks to all the work of those moderators behind the scenes.

By the way, I voted in the primary and in the election.

share|improve this answer
2  
sometimes I don't want to know how the sausage is made Unicorns. –  Yannis Jun 20 '12 at 2:29
    
There's sausage? Where!? I want some! –  animuson Jun 20 '12 at 2:34
2  
The sausage is People. How do you think we enforce the question ban? –  Ben Brocka Jun 20 '12 at 3:09
add comment

One possible reason is that the lack of in-your-face advertising has tossed out all the people who tangentally cared and left us with only those who actually care. That said however, have a look at the percentages instead of the scalars:

                         Previous   Current    Increase
    Eligibles visited    24.5%      19.6%     -4.9%
    Visitors voted       28.0%      22.7%     -5.3%
    Eligibles voted      6.87%      4.44%     -2.43%

Compared to the scalars, these differences don't look that bad.

share|improve this answer
1  
Well you need to make that last column a percent change, so it should be from top to bottom -20%, -18.9%, and -35.9% which is still pretty bad. –  JNK Jun 26 '12 at 18:58
add comment

At first I thought the steadily decreasing number of candidates was a slam-dunk explanation. Looking at the numbers, I'm not so sure anymore:

Election  Visitors  Seen it  Candidates Voters
   #1       ~25000    14130     55      4970
   #2        45177    17866     28      4994
   #3        60208    19479     18      4426

Roughly: steady growth in the number of users visiting the site, but with little active participation from new users. A core group of a fat four thousand users. That maybe shrunk by 10%

share|improve this answer
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .