Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: These new voting schemes
Message-ID: <6622@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 22 Oct 89 02:06:57 GMT
References: <4771@ncar.ucar.edu> <6618@ficc.uu.net> <8375@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 20

In article <8375@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) writes:
> Actually this type of format could be used very easily to report the
> modified STV (STV + "NO GROUP") that has been proposed.

Yes, but it's too much work for an individual to process those results and
verify that the voting went the way the proposer said it did.

I just don't think that it's that important to be able to microtune your vote
like that. If the group passes, you'll be swamped anyway. If it doesn't, who
cares? And if I, as the original proposer of STV (I even ran a vote that way!)
think it's too complex what do you think the rest of the net's opinions are.

> Personally I think that the modified STV is the best system by far.

It's the fairest system I know of. But it's too wild for these yanks.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"ERROR:  trust not in UUCP routing tables"                                 'U`
	-- MAILER-DAEMON@mcsun.EU.net