Jamie Strong, a member of Karl Morten's team at Oxford, nominated for the National Diversity Awards

https://twitter.com/user/status/1119284930687664133

https://nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/nominate/22663/

As far as I can see, the tweet refers to voting but it's actually nominating Jamie, so there is a little more effort required in that you need to explain why you are nominating him.

 

Either there is variance between their and my understanding of the words 'nomination' and 'vote' or there is seemingly some form of site error occuring.

My understanding is that once someone has been successfully nominated it is unusual for the vote to be in the form of renominating the same person.

The top of the page says he needs votes, but the bottom is demanding a short essay on why he should be successfully nominated.

Inconsistent

Importantly with no way to cast a vote, only a way to nominate someone who has already been successfully nominated, and should be past that process.

Of course, if my understanding of the words 'nominate and 'vote' is flawed and incomplete, I hope they start using this method for general electoral purposes.

The idea of an original 2000 word short essay being required to cast a vote for a MP seems like 'fun', and could radically change British politics.

 

Well, if I get a reply to this then I'll post it here
https://twitter.com/user/status/1120685738994089984

 

Oh, this is just how the awards work. I know a few people who've won or been nominated. Think of it as voting to shortlist, rather than voting to win outright.

The public can nominate literally anyone, so they balance that out by requiring people to vote for nominees. That way, only people with a certain number of votes make it to the shortlist, rather than everyone who gets a single vote.

Incidentally, I went to check more info, and then (lovely surprise!) saw my mum in the purple image (on the left) here: https://nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/categories/

It looks like she enjoyed the party last year: https://nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/national-diversity-awards-winners-interview-touchstone/

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1120705630690533385

That clarifies it, somewhat. I think they mean that they will count the number of nominations that each person receives, the one with the most wins.

 

I hope he wins but I am unable to participate in this, never having met him, or heard of him, previously.

A nomination is different from a vote.

Literally every word I submitted would be a lie.

 

Oh that's interesting. I assumed there was a panel who decided the final winners.

He better get tweeting then?

 

https://nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/judges/ - there are judges and there is voting by nominating. It doesn't seem a very clear process, I couldn't find any rules on their website to explain it either.

 

So the voting must help with shortlisting, and then the judges pick the final winners? I can't imagine they'd leave it entirely to popularity.

 

That won't work, I don't know any of those things.

A vote is a vote, not really subject to interpretation.

A nomination is a public statement recommending someone for something, giving, usually personal, reasons. After submission it is subject to interpretation, the beliefs and bias of whomever processes it. It may be disregarded, it may be weighted as to relevance, or because of who wrote it. It is not a vote, all nominations are not equal.

I realise others don't seem to have this problem but I cannot nominate someone I know nothing about, other than the publicity blurb associated with the nomination campaign. That is not a sensible basis for nominating someone, as everyone else will have glowing nomination publicity as well.

If he loses by 1 vote then I will feel bad, but this is not an acceptable system.

 

I don't know him and don't want to vote for someone I don't know. For all I know he could be a secret LP enthusiast.

 

That is quite possible. They do say that vinyl is back in fashion. It is problematic, though, for pwME. All that having to get up to turn them over.

 

Here’s some information about the work he’s doing with Karl Morten’s team at the University of Oxford:

https://www.wrh.ox.ac.uk/team/jamie-strong

 

I have no problem with voting for him, but I can't nominate him as my doing so would be inappropriate.

Voting for him is not an option tho.