robinbarke wrote:...I think there needs to be two further rounds of voting...If not the winning watch could be red while almost twice as many votes are cast for blue. ... does not seem to be particularly democratic and would not auger well for eventual sales....
To put a different viewpoint isn't that always been the case for a first past the post voting system?
It's a popular cry among the defeated parties that the government has been elected by a minority of the popular vote.
Yet they have been elected and they have a mandate to get on with ruining, sorry running the country.
Ok, this isn't a government election but it is first past the post vote.
I can't say for eventual sales. If only the people voting were voting to buy then you'd only in theory sell that number. What you don't want, as in my earlier hypothetical example, is to have a winner with say 90 votes but only 5 sales. However, if I understand human nature they'll be those who are swayed by the limited edition nature of the offering and buy anyway (even if to keep in a box).
Fair play to them who have said they are not going to buy and so will not vote.
Perhaps a balanced view prior to the vote would be to allow the candidates a thread in this sub-section where they can describe the inspiration and thinking behind their design and lobby for support. That may sway some who are against blue, red, orange, whatever when they understand some of the background.
Just some thoughts, Alex