Xref: utzoo news.groups:15600 news.admin:7958 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin Subject: Re: STV new group proposal in 25 lines Keywords: stv votes group creation interest surveys Message-ID: <7282@ficc.uu.net> Date: 13 Dec 89 14:45:09 GMT References: <5015@freja.diku.dk> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 31 In article <5015@freja.diku.dk> stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) writes: > In <2438@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" writes: [lots of stuff about how to count NO votes] I think the guy who said the vote should include seperate sections for the name and charter was right. Having run STV votes both ways, it's no more trouble to count YES/NO/NO.OPINION plus a choice of names than just a name vote. And it's clearly more flexible. How about this: Votes should be run as now (100 more YES than NO, with 2/3 YES required or without), but if there is controversy about the name then a simultaneous STV vote should be run on the name. This would make the ballots look like: YES alt.drugs.lithuanian.sheepdogs rec.models.barbie comp.sys.eniac.tcp-ip sci.weemba.sheep talk.sex.in.the.morning This could also be extended to other aspects of the vote, such as the charter. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com