Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!dsill From: dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Voting, single transferrable vote, etc Message-ID: <165@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> Date: 12 Oct 89 18:51:22 GMT References: <2673@cpoint.UUCP> <8910081919.AA15665@helios.enea.se> <3315@watale.waterloo.edu> Sender: news@ark1.nswc.navy.mil Reply-To: Dave Sill Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren VA Lines: 22 In article <2673@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > When a call for votes is proposed, include ALL proposed names. Each person > voting votes yes/no on EACH name. A voter simply votes YES on all the names > he would find acceptable, and NO on all the names he does not. > > You then apply your acceptance criteria (which right now seems to be simply > delta between YES and NO votes) to each. The best one wins, and if the best > one has a high enough threshold the group becomes reality. I think this is a great idea. It's as flexible as the modified-STV rules we've tossed around, but is very simple to both understand and use. There's only one small detail to be worked out, though. How do you decide which of the passing names (i.e., those that meet the 100-vote requirement or the criterion du jour) is the overall winner? The one with the most YES votes? The one with the fewest NO votes? The one with the best YES/NO ratio? I think, perhaps, fewest NO votes would be best; the path of least resistance, so to speak. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)