Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!usc!apple!sun-barr!ames!pacbell!well!fico2!everexn!karen
From: karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: New Voting Rules
Message-ID: <1989Oct26.000856.4961@everexn.uucp>
Date: 26 Oct 89 00:08:56 GMT
References: <361@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Everex Systems, Inc.
Lines: 66

bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>How about the following changes:

>  2. The vote taker should accept mailed requests to add a name to the
>     name list. At least three days after the initial NAME CHECK is
>     posted, the vote taker should post his CALL FOR VOTES in
>     news.announce.newgroups; the CALL FOR VOTES should list all
>     proposed names for the new group, including those submitted by
>     mail, in alphabetical order.

Let's make this closer to a week.  If a group is worth having, it's
worth waiting for.....Not all of us read news *every* single day
(sacrilege, I realize, but it had to be said).  I'd hate to miss out
on my opportunity to contribute the name that says it *all*, just
because there was other stuff I simply had to get done. 

[Lots of sensible but very intricate voting procedure stuff deleted.]

>C. There should be some way to deal with idiots who submit a hundred
>   different names for a group, and shout ``illegal vote!'' if the
>   vote taker ignores them. Will this be a problem? Also, is three days
>   long enough to make sure that write-in names get in?

I'm no expert, but I've seen enough merry prankstering on the net that
I find it hard to believe that this wouldn't be a *real* problem, and a
real headache for the poor vote taker.  (On the other hand, if you want
to keep the number of groups to a minimum, this could be part of a very
strenuous "running of the gauntlet" that a group champion would have
to endure in order to get his beloved group up and running. :-) )

Think about it:  If you were championing a group about, say, aquaria life
as we know it, would you want to deal with (and inflict on everyone else
by insisting that they vote on each name separately) 50 names such as
rec.goldfish.arent.they.cute because more than one person out there might
want to mess things up for you?  It would make sense that only names that 
were contributed with honest sincerity, with no malice aforethought, would
be considered "real" contributions--but who's going to decide that?  The
person who is initiating everything has his/her own agenda (and why not?).
I have no answers to this issue; questions and skepticism aplenty.

>F. Is this simple enough for the typical novice voter to understand?

I can speak to this one, because I'm a typical novice voter.  I had to
go over this article several times, carefully, to feel fairly sure that
I understand the ins and outs of this system.  Simple, it ain't.  I'm 
wondering if the question stated here shouldn't be, "Is this simple
enough for the typical novice voter to *use*?"  Asking the voter to be
able to figure things out enough to vote is a lot different than asking
him/her to understand the voting system.  As it is, you will have to provide 
an article that is available to the novice voter, day or night, that lays
out the complexities stated above, if you want him/her to understand the
voting system.  In addition, I'd suggest that there be another article
which would be the "HowTo" article, that would instruct the voter how to
vote, in as linear a fashion as possible ("First, you do this.  Next,
do this.  Next,...).  That way, your typical novice voter who really
couldn't care less how the voting system works could just get the damn vote
in and get back to his/her newsreading.

Karen

-- 
Karen Valentino  <>  Everex North (Everex Systems)  <>  Sebastopol, CA
                    ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen
         "Buy land.  They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain
              (thanks to jeffd for the loan of this quote)