Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: These new voting schemes Message-ID: <1989Oct24.012345.20588@NCoast.ORG> Date: 24 Oct 89 01:23:45 GMT References: <4771@ncar.ucar.edu> <6618@ficc.uu.net> <8375@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <6622@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) Followup-To: news.admin Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH Lines: 29 As quoted from <6622@ficc.uu.net> by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): +--------------- | 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. +--------------- Something else occurs to me. I'm still working with the person who wants to have me count a vote but wants to use STV rules; I might even set up some automatic (or semi-automatic) vote-counting procedures if I actually do it. Anyway, if STV proves to be too much of a pain for vote-counters, then the net might end up with a small core of people doing the actual vote-counting for most votes. And if you think people are upset about Chuq as a net.newsgroup.god, how are they going to feel about me as a net.vote.god??? (Just mentioning it, I don't think it'll happen in reality. At least, I hope not!) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp 161-7070 (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie), comp-sources-misc@backbone [comp.sources.misc-related mail should go ONLY to comp-sources-misc@] *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*