On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if
> turnout is low, in
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I heard that new Australian citizens
> are told that their two responsibilities as Australian citizens are
> jury duty and voting.
>
No paying taxes? Cool! ;-)
> I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Personally, I'd rather have ten voters who are inter
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> > and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> > may be in your b
On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 09:14 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Is this idea abhorrent to USAns?
Yep.
I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Yep, unless you're willing to do something like "either vote or you're
not a
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
>
> Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
> *good* thing? If I'm not
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:58:33AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
> > Why would rendering us una
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate consideration.
but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a l
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:23:28PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> > *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> > and such a lack of interest should be given appropria
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of interest
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
> John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
> John> are worried about?
>
> Before I thought about voting, I
Sam Hartman wrote:
"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would
> "Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response t
-wcxo4a1omaygu3.561r012qqwahn1.fcv7dm2z1tr563.cfup7ojs81sw-
Feel younger,
get rid of wrinkles, have more energy!
Find out more here!
Original Message
debian-vote@lists.debian.org wrote:
> Do you remember me?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if
> turnout is low, in
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I heard that new Australian citizens
> are told that their two responsibilities as Australian citizens are
> jury duty and voting.
>
No paying taxes? Cool! ;-)
> I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Personally, I'd rather have ten voters who are inter
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> > and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> > may be in your b
On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 09:14 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Is this idea abhorrent to USAns?
Yep.
I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Yep, unless you're willing to do something like "either vote or you're
not a DD anymo
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
>
> Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
> *good* thing? If I'm not
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:58:33AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
> > Why would rendering us una
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate consideration.
but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a l
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:23:28PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> > *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> > and such a lack of interest should be given appropria
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of interest
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
> John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
> John> are worried about?
>
> Before I thought about voting, I
Sam Hartman wrote:
"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have
> "Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response t
-wcxo4a1omaygu3.561r012qqwahn1.fcv7dm2z1tr563.cfup7ojs81sw-
Feel younger,
get rid of wrinkles, have more energy!
Find out more here!
Original Message
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you remember me?
26 matches
Mail list logo
