Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I think it'd be nice to have the option to sort the nominees by the current vote tally during the primaries.

I can see having a random order when the page loads, but it would be great if we could easily see who's in the lead.

I'm can do it easily enough like this:

var posts = $('.vote-count-post').get();
posts.sort(function(a,b){
    return +(a.innerHTML || 0) - +(b.innerHTML || 0);
});
var tbody = $(posts[0]).closest('tbody');
$.each(posts,function() {
    tbody.prepend($(this).closest('tr'));
});

...but a simple click to sort would be super.

share|improve this question
    
Isn't that a minor tweak to a rarely used feature (elections)? Perhaps the developers have more important/urgent/profitable things to implement. – ChrisW Jan 26 '11 at 1:38
    
@ChrisW: Yep, minor tweak. – user147519 Jan 26 '11 at 1:46
    
Looks like the vote tallies for withdrawn nominees have returned. They must be doing some minor tweaks. – user147519 Jan 26 '11 at 1:55
    
Wow, two down votes. Was this suggestion really that offensive? Would anyone care to explain their vote? – user147519 Jan 26 '11 at 3:22
    
@patrick: Read this before you get too worked up: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/270/… – BenV Jan 26 '11 at 5:02
    
@BenV: Thank you for the link. I agree with the answer from Bill the Lizard, which states that voters should explain why. Only comment I've received was a bit of a snarky marginalization from @ChrisW. Calling it a "minor tweak" doesn't describe the merit (or lack thereof) of the suggestion. Anyway, thanks again for the link. :o) – user147519 Jan 26 '11 at 16:56

We show candidates in random order to keep things fair by design.

share|improve this answer
    
Yeah, I thing that's a good policy on page load/reload. I'd think that would be sufficient to keep things fair, but at the same time, I can understand the desire to avoid potential controversy too. Thanks for the response. – user147519 Jan 26 '11 at 1:49
4  
If removing withdrawn candidates is not an option, at least group them at the end of the listing. Seeing their entries mixed in can be distracting. – Jeff Mercado Jan 26 '11 at 2:04
3  
How am I supposed to know who the best candidate is then? ;p – Bill the Lizard Jan 26 '11 at 2:04
10  
If you really want to keep things fair, why not keep the vote tallies invisible? – Ether Jan 26 '11 at 3:33
    
@Ether: Great point. – user147519 Jan 26 '11 at 3:37
    
If its invisible someone will cry for foul; Certainly count make it biased I think they should be visible to candidates only. – Pushpak Apr 15 '15 at 11:19

I have followed enough stack exchange sites to understand how psychology affects the way of voting by people. A post that is above all other posts has more chances to get voted, so your proposal introduces a virtuous circle for top candidates, and a vicious circle for candidates with few votes.

Instead I think that the sorting should be random, and updated randomly every certain amount of time, in a way that whoever could be in top, without that luck influences much the elections results.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.