Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!iuvax!watmath!xenitec!edhew
From: edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: STV, WEIP, MAUVE - a comparison
Keywords: STV, MAUVE, WEIP, newgroup, complicated
Message-ID: <1989Nov26.011025.1161@xenitec.on.ca>
Date: 26 Nov 89 01:10:25 GMT
References: <2438@stl.stc.co.uk> <2440@stl.stc.co.uk> <2876@cpoint.UUCP> <51370@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew)
Followup-To: news.groups
Distribution: news
Organization: XeniTec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, Canada
Lines: 17

In article <51370@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>STV was explained (the voting process only) in 25 lines in news.groups.
>
>But the fact that we're seing dozens of 100 line clarifications and questions
>does not bode well.  We're going to get this with each newcomer, each new
>self apointed net.police officer.

....and all this without even so much as a contested vote!  Considering
the net.flameage we see with the current simple scheme, I can just imagine
the results the very first time someone doesn't like the outcome of an STV
vote.  Sure, it may be more flexible, but it also appears to be open to
so many interpretations that it will settle nothing.

>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

  Ed. A. Hew, SCO Authorized Technical Trainer, XeniTec Consulting Services
  edhew@xenitec.on.ca	       -or-	   ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew