Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!natinst!bigtex!pmafire!geoff
From: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Recent Voting Stats
Summary: 2/3 looks like a good idea
Keywords: vote results stats
Message-ID: <856@pmafire.UUCP>
Date: 13 Nov 89 18:01:34 GMT
References: <854@pmafire.UUCP> <855@pmafire.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Organization: WINCO Computer Engineering, INEL, Idaho
Lines: 36

In article <855@pmafire.UUCP> I write:
>
>Group				Yes	 No	Percent
>-----				---	 --	-------
>comp.infosystems		190	 32	 85.6
>comp.object			884	 21	 97.7
>comp.os.os2			192	 28	 87.3
>comp.sys.m88k			131	  6	 95.6
>comp.sys.mac.hardware		254	 22	 92.0
>rec.org.sca			160	 20	 88.9
>rec.sport.football split	 87	 33	 72.5
>sci.aquaria			466	320	 59.3
>soc.culture.korean		181	 32	 85.0
>soc.culture.latin-america	238	 23	 91.2

The first thing that I find interesting about these results is that
almost all of the groups got 20-30 no votes.  It didn't seem to matter
if the yesses were 884 (comp.object) or 160 (rec.org.sca).  This would
seem to support Peter's contention that yes and no votes on the net are
unrelated.

The only group that would have failed by the 100 no vote criterion is
sci.aquaria.  The only group that would have failed a 2/3 majority
criterion is (surprise!) sci.aquaria.  (Excluding the rec.sport.football
split, which failed the yes > no + 100 criterion.)

It seems to me that the 2/3 majority requirement is a good one.  Every
group but sci.aquaria easily meets this requirement.

I also like the multivoting scheme (MAUVE?) being discussed recently,
but that's another matter, I suppose.

-- 
Geoff Allen                  \  I don't speak for WINCO or DOE,
{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff  \  and they don't speak for me.
ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff   \