Xref: utzoo news.groups:11485 news.admin:6522
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!mailrus!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Designated counters
Message-ID: <3937@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 89 00:38:21 GMT
References: <5554@ficc.uu.net> <12371@s.ms.uky.edu>
Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 15

In article <12371@s.ms.uky.edu> chaney@ms.uky.edu (Dan Chaney) writes:

>What response does one get to the idea of a panel of vote takers?  That is,
>these 12 people have volunteered themselves/sites as vote takers. 

  There is certainly no reason why a volunteer vote-taker couldn't run the 
vote. This is a particularly good idea for would-be vote takers who are
on poorly-connected sites or leaf nodes. But it shouldn't be required.
If someone is on a well-connected site there is no reason why they can't run
their own vote. While there have been problems with votes, practically all of
them have to do with connectivity woes. There has never been a proven case
of voting fraud. If we can't trust the vote-takers to be honest, we might
as well chuck the whole voting process.

--Greg