Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CfD: Interest Groups Surveys Message-ID: Date: 23 Feb 90 12:29:32 GMT References: <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <22212.25d6c149@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <77031@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <22242.25da835b@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> <-UV1G9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> <1809@skye.ed.ac.uk> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 > >If you only eliminate names at the top level that becomes very unlikely. > Why? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this. Only eliminate the losing candidate from the first-round choices, instead of removing it from the ballot altogether. That gives it a chance for a comeback. > What do you > think of "approval voting" (cast one vote for each choice you "approve > of", choice with greatest total wins) as alternative system? That's also an acceptable method, but it doesn't let you say "I like this name more than that one". I think both transferrable votes and approval voting should be added to the guidelines as acceptable alternatives for hotly debated group names. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'