On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:39:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:31:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > When the majority of voters agree that something should be done, it's
> > pretty clear that [1] is better than [2].
> > When the majority of voters do not agree that som
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:39:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:31:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > When the majority of voters agree that something should be done, it's
> > pretty clear that [1] is better than [2].
> > When the majority of voters do not agree that som
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:31:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> When the majority of voters agree that something should be done, it's
> pretty clear that [1] is better than [2].
> When the majority of voters do not agree that something should be done
> it's pretty clear that [2] is better than [1].
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:31:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> When the majority of voters agree that something should be done, it's
> pretty clear that [1] is better than [2].
> When the majority of voters do not agree that something should be done
> it's pretty clear that [2] is better than [1].
[There's an irony here which is probably worth noting. In past
discussions, Anthony Towns had been in favor of eliminating all options
which don't beat the default option early on in vote resolution, rather
than including any special treatment of the default option in any
iterative part of the vot
[There's an irony here which is probably worth noting. In past
discussions, Anthony Towns had been in favor of eliminating all options
which don't beat the default option early on in vote resolution, rather
than including any special treatment of the default option in any
iterative part of the vot
6 matches
Mail list logo
