Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🚫 No AI-generated (LLM) posts allowed. Share your own thoughts and experience — accounts may be terminated for violations.
It is known as the Subset Sum Problem. Unfortunately last year was the only year the exact voting strategy could be revealed, as Popularise published an additional document which listed the first preference votes without the cap applied.
This year, they have avoided listing the applied cap, but as it cannot be more than 3%, then it has to be 3% of 1437735, rounded down to 43132. There are 21 members who have voting rights greater than this, of which the following 14 voted:
This year, they have avoided listing the applied cap, but as it cannot be more than 3%, then it has to be 3% of 1437735, rounded down to 43132. There are 21 members who have voting rights greater than this, of which the following 14 voted:
Does that mean that the 14 who voted controlled a maximum of 42% of the actual vote cast (i.e. 14 x 3%) with the remaining 58% of votes coming from "uncapped" members?
Does that mean that the 14 who voted controlled a maximum of 42% of the actual vote cast (i.e. 14 x 3%) with the remaining 58% of votes coming from "uncapped" members?
Ok, thanks. It's interesting that the cap makes all the top registrars as powerful/weak as each other when it comes to voting (i.e. you don't have to be a top 5 registrar to have the "maximum influence")