Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 03:10:56AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I've always taken it to mean "ignoring the slight possibility that
> > > > people who have voted didn't mean what they said".
> >
> > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 08:02:00PM -0500,
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 03:10:56AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I've always taken it to mean "ignoring the slight possibility that
> > > people who have voted didn't mean what they said".
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 08:02:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I am not sure that the
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:52:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I
> think I don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in
> doubt", since people can always revote.
[...]
> I suggest we strike the clause about the s
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 05:39, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> There is another problem here, which is far worse IMHO. For somebody to
> declare that an early end is possible, that person needs to have inside
> knowledge about the votes cast so far.
The person who makes that declaration is the Project
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 04:00, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Well, the current draft says "In this context, we ignore the
> > possibility that people might want to change their vote."
>
>
> Is that a reasonable statement?
Probably, actually, for the reasons mentioned in another message by me,
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The major problem, as I see it, is that we have not yet
> conducted enough votes, and on enough different _kinds_ of options,
> to convincingly determine what fraction of voters typically change
> their minds, and to build a safe buffer in determining when a
On Tue, 13 May 2003 03:23:19 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 09:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> BTW, people did revote on the last day of the DPL elections, and
>> the narrowest victory was in single digit votes, ( 4 beats 2: 228
>> 224 = 4 ).
On Tue, 13 May 2003 03:10:56 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I've always taken it to mean "ignoring the slight possibility
>> > that people who have voted didn't mean what they said".
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 08:02:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am not sure that the
On Tue, 13 May 2003 03:15:01 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 06:52 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I think I
>> don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in doubt
On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 09:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
BTW, people did revote on the last day of the DPL elections,
and the narrowest victory was in single digit votes, ( 4 beats
2: 228 224 = 4 ).
If there were 4 people who hadn't voted, then, the outcome was still in
doubt. With th
On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 06:52 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi folks,
After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I
think I don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in
doubt", since people can always revote.
Well, the current draft says "In this context,
Hello,
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:52:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I suggest we strike the clause about the secretary's ability
> to end votes early.
I agree with this. The "no longer in daubt" clause is
hard to get right and early termination of votes doesn't buy
us much.
Joche
> > I've always taken it to mean "ignoring the slight possibility that
> > people who have voted didn't mean what they said".
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 08:02:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am not sure that the possibility is slight, really.
Oh? In the elections you have details on,
On Mon, 12 May 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I suggest we strike the clause about the secretary's ability
> to end votes early.
I was wondering about the issue of vote changability. I'm not exactly a
veteran in the voting procedures debate, but for what it's worth, I think
this clause
On Mon, 12 May 2003 19:44:48 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:52:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I think I
>> don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in doubt",
>> since people ca
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:52:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I
> think I don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in
> doubt", since people can always revote.
Clearly the idea doesn't make sense if everybody change
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I suggest we strike the clause about the secretary's ability
> to end votes early.
i concur.
-john
Hi folks,
After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I
think I don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in
doubt", since people can always revote.
Say, with 1000 voters, on day 1, 800 people voted option A
over option B, and 100 people vote option B ov
18 matches
Mail list logo
