My take on the us.* results, take 2
Trif
Joel K. Furr <jf...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>Distilled down to a single sentence, my take on all this is this:
>
>Given the fear and paranoia and outright lies that were produced by
>opponents of even a _simple_ plan, I strongly suggest that those of you
>who wanted more complex plans join the us.* proposers in taking a _long_
>cooling off period before trying to start discussions again.
Characterizing the opposition like this is not going to help matters,
Joel.
I suspect that if the vote were reheld with the provision that the
voting rules from the Big 7 would be used in the interim for new
groups until such time as new procedures were agreed upon, this vote
would pass. The biggest problem people had with this proposal was
the "cabal".
Here's even a scheme for conducting votes on changing the rules:
Minumum 4 weeks discussion, anyone may propose a scheme to be placed
on the ballot, but it has to be "seconded" by 20 other people to go on
the formal CFV and you can't second more than one proposal. Single
Transferrable Vote to be used for the voting, and the status quo
will be one of the options.
Hey, off the top of my head, but I'd be willing to bet that something
like this would pass.
Joel K. Furr
Craig Dickson
|In article <328aic$4...@news.duke.edu>,
|Joel K. Furr <jf...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
|>
|>Given the fear and paranoia and outright lies that were produced by
|>opponents of even a _simple_ plan, [...]
|
|Characterizing the opposition like this is not going to help matters,
|Joel.
Actually, I thought Joel's restraint in the above statement was admirable.
I contributed as few articles to the us.* fight as I did because beyond a
certain point all there was really left to say was, "Please consult a
psychiatrist."
--
Craig Dickson <c...@netcom.com>
World Wide Web alt.usenet.kooks archives: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/crd/auk.html
Randolph Fritz
Trif <d...@hardy.u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I suspect that if the vote were reheld with the provision that the
>voting rules from the Big 7 would be used in the interim for new
>groups until such time as new procedures were agreed upon, this vote
>would pass. The biggest problem people had with this proposal was
>the "cabal".
>
As a no voter on the original proposal, I agree. We could even
hold the discussion in the existing us.groups.
>Here's even a scheme for conducting votes on changing the rules:
>Minumum 4 weeks discussion, anyone may propose a scheme to be placed
>on the ballot, but it has to be "seconded" by 20 other people to go on
>the formal CFV and you can't second more than one proposal. Single
>Transferrable Vote to be used for the voting, and the status quo
>will be one of the options.
>
Sounds pretty good; I suppose the status quo has to be an option,
though it is very likely to win through sheer inertia. Um, what is
Single Transferrable Vote?
>
>Hey, off the top of my head, but I'd be willing to bet that something
>like this would pass.
>
Well, it would get my vote, anyhow.
Randolph Fritz
rand...@netcom.com
John Payson
Randolph Fritz <rand...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Sounds pretty good; I suppose the status quo has to be an option,
>though it is very likely to win through sheer inertia. Um, what is
>Single Transferrable Vote?
Each person votes for first choise, second choice, third choice, etc. If
any candidate gets a majority of "first choice" votes, it wins. Otherwise,
the candidate which got the LEAST first-choice votes is disqualified and
all votes for that candidate dropped, bringing up other choices as appropriate
(e.g. if I'd voted for Perot first and Bush second, once Perot was dropped
out my vote would be regarded as a Bush vote).
This scheme has the substantial advantage that one can vote for who one
really WANTS to win, rather than having to vote for who is LIKELY to win
(since one can list those likely to win as third, fourth, etc. choices in
case one's preferred candidates lose).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal si beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )
Gregory M. Paris
>I suspect that if the vote were reheld with the provision that the
>voting rules from the Big 7 would be used in the interim for new
>groups until such time as new procedures were agreed upon, this vote
>would pass. The biggest problem people had with this proposal was
>the "cabal".
Indeed, that's why I voted 'no'.
On the other hand, I suspect that there is a large fraction of USENET
readers in the United States who would prefer to keep discussion of US
topics in the Big 7 (plus alt). That rather than have those topics
relegated to some poorly propagated experimental hierarchy.
In other words, fixing the charter may not cause us.* to get a majority
of 'yes' votes.
Greg
--
Greg Paris <pa...@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com>
Motorola Information Systems Group, 20 Cabot Blvd, Mansfield, MA 02048-1193
"Your Plastic Pal who's fun to be with." TM Sirius Cybernetics
These posts are self-disclamatory.
Ed McGuire
>Here's even a scheme for conducting votes on changing the rules:
>Minumum 4 weeks discussion, anyone may propose a scheme to be placed
>on the ballot, but it has to be "seconded" by 20 other people to go on
>the formal CFV and you can't second more than one proposal. Single
>Transferrable Vote to be used for the voting, and the status quo
>will be one of the options.
>Hey, off the top of my head, but I'd be willing to bet that something
>like this would pass.
Something like this is being discussed on the usa mailing list. I'd
like to have your input; anyone can subscribe by mailing
usa-r...@byu.edu.
In a while I hope we can resurrect the existing group us.config for
such discussions, but it's too poorly propagated at the moment.
Regards, Ed
Trif
>Something like this is being discussed on the usa mailing list. I'd
>like to have your input; anyone can subscribe by mailing
>usa-r...@byu.edu.
Sorry, but subscribing to even a medium-volume mailing list would blow
my quota right out of the water. I've tried to point out the fact that
not everyone can participate in a mailing list because of the ability
to receive a limited quantity of email.
Tim Pierce
Trif <d...@hardy.u.washington.edu> wrote:
Then you should subscribe to us.config.
I *know* that solution is not available to everyone. That's
why the newsgroup was gatewayed to the usa mailing list. If
your disk quota is really that pitifully small, well, too
bad. There are people whose only access to the net is
through a FidoNet conference, but I doubt that anyone is
going to bother to accommodate them, either. This is not a
proposal for a Usenet newsgroup and it has monopolized the
Usenet administrative newsgroups for too long.
Michael Grubb has generously offered to assist people in
acquiring feeds for us.config. You may wish to contact him
if your site is willing to pick it up.
--
Crazy isn't so bad. I could get used to this. -- Mary Campbell
Kai Henningsen
> In article <randolphC...@netcom.com>,
> Randolph Fritz <rand...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Sounds pretty good; I suppose the status quo has to be an option,
> >though it is very likely to win through sheer inertia. Um, what is
> >Single Transferrable Vote?
>
> Each person votes for first choise, second choice, third choice, etc. If
> any candidate gets a majority of "first choice" votes, it wins. Otherwise,
> the candidate which got the LEAST first-choice votes is disqualified and
> all votes for that candidate dropped, bringing up other choices as
> appropriate (e.g. if I'd voted for Perot first and Bush second, once Perot
> was dropped out my vote would be regarded as a Bush vote).
Sorry, but that sounds like the wrong way to do it. I believe the right
way would go like this:
First, look for a majority counting only "first choice" votes.
Second, look for a majority counting *both* first and second choice votes.
And so on.
Suppose, on your example, that everyone who didn't vote Perot first, did
vote Perot second?
Kai
--
Internet: k...@ms.maus.de, k...@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!{ms.maus.de!kh,khms.westfalen.de!kai}
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
John Payson
Kai Henningsen <k...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>supe...@MCS.COM wrote on 11.08.94 in <32ev65$h...@Venus.mcs.com>:
>>
>> any candidate gets a majority of "first choice" votes, it wins. Otherwise,
>> the candidate which got the LEAST first-choice votes is disqualified and
>> all votes for that candidate dropped, bringing up other choices as
>> appropriate (e.g. if I'd voted for Perot first and Bush second, once Perot
>> was dropped out my vote would be regarded as a Bush vote).
>
>Sorry, but that sounds like the wrong way to do it. I believe the right
>way would go like this:
>
>First, look for a majority counting only "first choice" votes.
>Second, look for a majority counting *both* first and second choice votes.
>
>And so on.
>
>Suppose, on your example, that everyone who didn't vote Perot first, did
>vote Perot second?
There are a number of desireable properties of a good vote-counting scheme.
Although your description is not adequate to describe fully your scheme, it
sounds like voting a popular candidate as one's second-choice could be harmful
to the candidate for whom one casts one's first choice. It's tough to define
what qualities are desired in a voting scheme, but it's probably desireable to
have one's first-choice votes not affected by subsequent votes--otherwise there
is an encouragement for people to avoid listing second-choices (or list no-name
candidates with the same effect).
Of course, it's not possible to create a scheme which satisfies all desirable
conditions, but STV is generally regarded as one of the best methods in cases
where vote-counting will be automated.