Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!bernstei
From: bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: New Voting Rules
Summary: this is as simple as Wells' scheme---with weights
Message-ID: <362@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 89 19:47:35 GMT
References: <361@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <6629@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: usa
Lines: 13

In article <6629@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Secondly, this is the most complex proposal I've seen so far, with no clear
> advantage over STV or even Alien Wells' scheme. There's a problem that needs
> to be fixed, but anything this complex is just not going to work.

For practical purposes, this is the same as what Wells proposed---with
the advantage that *if* a voter wants to make fine distinctions between
his YESs and NOs, he can. Most votes will look the same as votes under
Wells' scheme.

There's going to be some complexity in the new voting rules, no matter what.

---Dan Bernstein, bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu