Quote from: mr_random on June 12, 2013, 05:35:01 PM

Quote from: boogerthe2nd on June 12, 2013, 12:13:49 PM

Quote from: mr_random on June 12, 2013, 12:08:34 PM

WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.

I own a large amount of both coins.

Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders...
For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted.

That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts).

I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me...

It is relevant, because unlike your presidential election scenario, one vote here is not necessarily equal to one shareholder's vote. Like you said, as an extreme example, if one shareholder holds 90% of the shares, then the shareholder vote should have pretty much no resemblance to the forum vote.

Also, the two sample spaces you're using are different. Vircurex shareholders can be likened to votes in one particular state in USA, while these alt forums could be likened to another completely different state. You wouldn't expect votes in both states to be more or less equal would you? One state would traditionally favour one party in most cases.

Note that one vote here isn't necessarily a 'fair' vote either; people could easily create duplicate accounts and vote more than once. Not saying that this occurred necessarily, but just pointing out it's possible, and that your presidential election comparison is flawed too in that respect.