Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: "Acceptance voting" Re: Voting, single transferrable vote, etc
Message-ID: <5815@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 89 18:47:48 GMT
References: <8910081919.AA15665@helios.enea.se> <3315@watale.waterloo.edu> <2673@cpoint.UUCP> <6518@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford)
Organization: If you worked here you'd go home by now
Lines: 28
In-reply-to: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)

In article <6518@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes:
) [ 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. ]

Bravo!  Now we're getting somewhere!  I like this scheme.  I think it is
good.  I think that other people might like it too.  It strips away a
lot of possible deck-stacking, log-rolling, and sequential-choice problems.

) 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?

I can't think how that would be necessary.  Under what criteria can the
name with the most yes votes fail, but some other name pass?  I suppose
it could happen if there were voters who omitted some of the candidate
names.  Defining a default treatment for omitted name would obviate the
question.

It boils down to the following proposition, I suppose:

	If a newsgroup for a certain purpose is to be created, it should
	be created with the name favored by the greatest number of voters. 

The only alternative I can see to accepting this proposition is to
advocate some "tsar nomenklaturoi".  I doubt that that would be a
very popular opinion.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford	     		matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu