I've been wondering recently why you guys here do not pay due attention that there are sooo few voters who actually voted albeit that there are so many eligible voters.

This is happening at ELL also, but I refrained from commenting there, since it seems they seem to be thinking they are "untouchable".

So far, I've been not so active at SE, but since the notification for this election came, I voted. But,

1,299 voters were eligible, 368 visited the site during the election, 270 visited the election page, and 128 voted

Think, only 10% out of 1299 eligible voters cast the ballot.

Are you doing the election for the election sake or just don't worry about this problem? As far as I experienced, even at the highly populated ELL the same phenomenon occurred.

This means almost entire participants are not interested in who the moderators are. My personal suggestion is if the voting outcome is lower than 25-40%, the election itself should be doomed to be nullified.

See the history of the popular vote for presidency. Even the honorable G.H.W.Bush garnered 37.4% from Republicans who lost to Clinton in 1992.( Lowest after WW2. )

I am afraid it may be I should not have used the political statistics. But my question even became larger than before after checking/comparing with the last year's election.

According to 2017's election.

1,023 voters were eligible, 297 visited the site during the election, 234 visited the election page, and 107 voted

So on the contrary to one of the answerer's claim, the "eligible" voters increased by the number of 276, while the actual final voters increased only the small margin by the number of 21.

So the increment ratio is 107/1023 = 10.3%, which is even larger than this year's final outcome numbers / eligible numbers, which is 128/1299 = 9.8%. ( Interestingly, last year, the number of people who visited the site is almost close to the number of the people who visited the election site. ( This year, the difference widened. )

One of the answer says these so called "sleepers" are physically dead or left, but the statistics show the contrary. The site has become more active but the people who are interested in the election decreased as I mentioned above.

I will update later for ELL site too.

I hope current standing moderators or communities pay serious concern to this issue.

Thank you.

I've been wondering recently why you guys here do not pay due attention that there are sooo few voters who actually voted albeit that there are so many eligible voters.

This is happening at ELL also, but I refrained from commenting there, since it seems they seem to be thinking they are "untouchable".

So far, I've been not so active at SE, but since the notification for this election came, I voted. But,

1,299 voters were eligible, 368 visited the site during the election, 270 visited the election page, and 128 voted

Think, only 10% out of 1299 eligible voters cast the ballot.

Are you doing the election for the election sake or just don't worry about this problem? As far as I experienced, even at the highly populated ELL the same phenomenon occurred.

This means almost entire participants are not interested in who the moderators are. My personal suggestion is if the voting outcome is lower than 25-40%, the election itself should be doomed to be nullified.

See the history of the popular vote for presidency. Even the honorable G.H.W.Bush garnered 37.4% from Republicans who lost to Clinton in 1992.( Lowest after WW2. )

I am afraid it may be I should not have used the political statistics. But my question even became larger than before after checking/comparing with the last year's election.

According to 2017's election.

1,023 voters were eligible, 297 visited the site during the election, 234 visited the election page, and 107 voted

So on the contrary to one of the answerer's claim, the "eligible" voters increased by the number of 276, while the actual final voters increased only the small margin by the number of 21.

So the increment ratio is 107/1023 = 10.3%, which is even larger than this year's final outcome numbers / eligible numbers, which is 128/1299 = 9.8%. ( Interestingly, last year, the number of people who visited the site is almost close to the number of the people who visited the election site. ( This year, the difference widened. )

One of the answer says these so called "sleepers" are physically dead or left, but the statistics show the contrary. The site has become more active but the people who are interested in the election decreased as I mentioned above.

And as I surveyed about the ELL election, I found out this problem is deeper than I or we thought.

In 2016 election

869 voters were eligible, 274 visited the site during the election, 235 visited the election page, and 120 voted

There were only 869 eligible voters. And the real outcome / eligible ratio is 120/869 = 13.8%

However, in 2018 election,

3,294 voters were eligible, 1,087 visited the site during the election, 749 visited the election page, and 367 voted

Within only 2 years, "eligible" voters increased by the number of 2,425, almost quadrupled!, but the voting outcome / eligible ratio decreased, which is 367/3294 = 11.1%.

So the "sleeping or dead or left" answer is a complete lie, the SE has become more popular, though people who are concerned about who the moderators are decreasing.

I'd like to warn current standing moderators or communities pay serious concern to this issue in order to maintain moderators' credibility.

Thank you.

I've been wondering recently why you guys here do not pay due attention that there are sooo few voters who actually voted albeit that there are so many eligible voters.

This is happening at ELL also, but I refrained from commenting there, since it seems they seem to be thinking they are "untouchable".

So far, I've been not so active at SE, but since the notification for this election came, I voted. But,

1,299 voters were eligible, 368 visited the site during the election, 270 visited the election page, and 128 voted

Think, only 10% out of 1299 eligible voters cast the ballot.

Are you doing the election for the election sake or just don't worry about this problem? As far as I experienced, even at the highly populated ELL the same phenomenon occurred.

This means almost entire participants are not interested in who the moderators are. My personal suggestion is if the voting outcome is lower than 25-40%, the election itself should be doomed to be nullified.

See the history of the popular vote for presidency. Even the honorable G.H.W.Bush garnered 37.4% from Republicans who lost to Clinton in 1992.( Lowest after WW2. )

I am afraid it may be I should not have used the political statistics. But my question even became larger than before after checking/comparing with the last year's election.

According to 2017's election.

1,023 voters were eligible, 297 visited the site during the election, 234 visited the election page, and 107 voted

So on the contrary to one of the answerer's claim, the "eligible" voters increased by the number of 276, while the actual final voters increased only the small margin by the number of 21.

So the increment ratio is 21/276 = 7%, which is even lower than this year's final outcome numbers / eligible numbers, which is 128/1299 = 9.8%.

One of the answer says these so called "sleepers" are physically dead or left, but the statistics show the contrary. The site has become more active but the people who are interested in the election decreased as I mentioned above.

I will update later for ELL site too.

I hope current standing moderators or communities pay serious concern to this issue.

Thank you.

I've been wondering recently why you guys here do not pay due attention that there are sooo few voters who actually voted albeit that there are so many eligible voters.

This is happening at ELL also, but I refrained from commenting there, since it seems they seem to be thinking they are "untouchable".

So far, I've been not so active at SE, but since the notification for this election came, I voted. But,

1,299 voters were eligible, 368 visited the site during the election, 270 visited the election page, and 128 voted

Think, only 10% out of 1299 eligible voters cast the ballot.

Are you doing the election for the election sake or just don't worry about this problem? As far as I experienced, even at the highly populated ELL the same phenomenon occurred.

This means almost entire participants are not interested in who the moderators are. My personal suggestion is if the voting outcome is lower than 25-40%, the election itself should be doomed to be nullified.

See the history of the popular vote for presidency. Even the honorable G.H.W.Bush garnered 37.4% from Republicans who lost to Clinton in 1992.( Lowest after WW2. )

I am afraid it may be I should not have used the political statistics. But my question even became larger than before after checking/comparing with the last year's election.

According to 2017's election.

1,023 voters were eligible, 297 visited the site during the election, 234 visited the election page, and 107 voted

So on the contrary to one of the answerer's claim, the "eligible" voters increased by the number of 276, while the actual final voters increased only the small margin by the number of 21.

So the increment ratio is 107/1023 = 10.3%, which is even larger than this year's final outcome numbers / eligible numbers, which is 128/1299 = 9.8%. ( Interestingly, last year, the number of people who visited the site is almost close to the number of the people who visited the election site. ( This year, the difference widened. )

One of the answer says these so called "sleepers" are physically dead or left, but the statistics show the contrary. The site has become more active but the people who are interested in the election decreased as I mentioned above.

I will update later for ELL site too.

I hope current standing moderators or communities pay serious concern to this issue.

Thank you.

I've been wondering recently why you guys here do not pay due attention that there are sooo few voters who actually voted albeit that there are so many eligible voters.

This is happening at ELL also, but I refrained from commenting there, since it seems they seem to be thinking they are "untouchable".

So far, I've been not so active at SE, but since the notification for this election came, I voted. But,

1,299 voters were eligible, 368 visited the site during the election, 270 visited the election page, and 128 voted

Think, only 10% out of 1299 eligible voters cast the ballot.

Are you doing the election for the election sake or just don't worry about this problem? As far as I experienced, even at the highly populated ELL the same phenomenon occurred.

This means almost entire participants are not interested in who the moderators are. My personal suggestion is if the voting outcome is lower than 25-40%, the election itself should be doomed to be nullified.

See the history of the popular vote for presidency. Even the honorable G.H.W.Bush garnered 37.4% from Republicans who lost to Clinton in 1992.( Lowest after WW2. )

I hope current standing moderators or communities pay serious concern to this issue.

Thank you.

I've been wondering recently why you guys here do not pay due attention that there are sooo few voters who actually voted albeit that there are so many eligible voters.

This is happening at ELL also, but I refrained from commenting there, since it seems they seem to be thinking they are "untouchable".

So far, I've been not so active at SE, but since the notification for this election came, I voted. But,

1,299 voters were eligible, 368 visited the site during the election, 270 visited the election page, and 128 voted

Think, only 10% out of 1299 eligible voters cast the ballot.

Are you doing the election for the election sake or just don't worry about this problem? As far as I experienced, even at the highly populated ELL the same phenomenon occurred.

This means almost entire participants are not interested in who the moderators are. My personal suggestion is if the voting outcome is lower than 25-40%, the election itself should be doomed to be nullified.

See the history of the popular vote for presidency. Even the honorable G.H.W.Bush garnered 37.4% from Republicans who lost to Clinton in 1992.( Lowest after WW2. )

I am afraid it may be I should not have used the political statistics. But my question even became larger than before after checking/comparing with the last year's election.

According to 2017's election.

1,023 voters were eligible, 297 visited the site during the election, 234 visited the election page, and 107 voted

So on the contrary to one of the answerer's claim, the "eligible" voters increased by the number of 276, while the actual final voters increased only the small margin by the number of 21.

So the increment ratio is 21/276 = 7%, which is even lower than this year's final outcome numbers / eligible numbers, which is 128/1299 = 9.8%.

One of the answer says these so called "sleepers" are physically dead or left, but the statistics show the contrary. The site has become more active but the people who are interested in the election decreased as I mentioned above.

I will update later for ELL site too.

I hope current standing moderators or communities pay serious concern to this issue.

Thank you.