Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: "Acceptance voting" Re: Voting, single transferrable vote, etc
Message-ID: <6518@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 12 Oct 89 11:42:42 GMT
References: <8910081919.AA15665@helios.enea.se> <3315@watale.waterloo.edu> <2673@cpoint.UUCP>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 17

[ the proposal, each 'vote' contains a seperate YES or NO for each suggested
  name. The name with the most YES votes is considered, and if it passes the
  criteria the group is created. ]

This proposal is an excellent compromise between fairness and complexity,
and I would vote for it (:->). I would like to make one suggestion, though.
And that is to allow write-ins, in case the guy running the vote *still*
tries to stack the deck by leaving an appropriate name out (under whatever
excuse... "I didn't see that one", for example).

Also, what happens if the name with the most YES votes fails? Does the group
fail, or do we consider the name with the next-highest YES count?
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
                                                                           'U`
Quote: Structured Programming is a discipline -- not a straitjacket.