Xref: utzoo news.groups:15184 news.admin:7834 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!dkuug!freja!stodol From: stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin Subject: Re: STV new group proposal in 25 lines Keywords: single transferrable vote counting STV group creation Message-ID: <4999@freja.diku.dk> Date: 24 Nov 89 20:15:54 GMT Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK Lines: 68 In <2438@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" writes: >Following the discussion period, the proposal shall be put to the vote, and >shall include the names suggested during discussion, plus 'no group'. The >news.announce.newgroups moderator may add any that have been mailed to >him. This places a mail load on the moderator and hides part of the process. How about (optional wording indicated in parenthesis): Following the discussion period, all names that have been posted (and that have received a second) will be included in the Interest Group Survey announcement appearing in news.announce.newgroups. A person may suggest (or second) only one name. If any names are omitted, a corrected survey announcement may be sent to the moderator and will be posted if it is a valid correction (and the moderator will delete the faulty announcement.) > the total of all other choices less 'no's is under 100 ===> vote fails This counts "no"s twice. It also discards "no"s if they appear at different stages in the count and are in the minority at that stage. The current rationale for "no"s is to avoid the creation of groups with inappropriate names. Single Transferrable Voting is a better way to do this. "No"s in Single Transferrable Voting allow people to express preferences among the names independent of expressing support for creation of a group. Thus, to answer: "How many people want a group with the most preferred name?": the total vote less 'no's removed is under 100 ===> vote fails (see my post, "Single Transferrable Vote Counting", for details) This avoids the problem pointed out by dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers): (in article <29992@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>) |Assume I don't care whether the group exists or not, but I feel very |strongly against the name "sci.aquaria". How do I vote? There's no |way I can express this group preference without effectively voting |eith "YES" or "NO" to the group itself. Either I can vote | |(1) rec.aquaria (2) NO (3) sci.aquaria |or |(1) NO (2) rec.aquaria (3) sci.aquaria. | |But neither of these is right. The first will count as an effective YES |vote for the group, demonstrating an enthusiasm for the group which is not |present. Ditto for the second and "NO". With the counting method suggested above, the second option indicates preference without affecting support for group creation. >After the count, the results shall be posted to news.groups, showing the >count at each stage, and listing voters by their first preferences. The >list may also show their other preferences in any convenient tabular form. If users can check the scoring, then posting the intermediate counts is unnecessary. Thus: Results, including number of votes for the most preferred name, number of votes supporting creation, and the how each person voted, shall be posted to news.announce.newgroups and other groups that received the earlier announcements. -- David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com