entropy@pawl.rpi.edu (The One True Cross) (11/11/89)
In <1451@dfsun1.electro.swri.edu> fenske@dfsun1.UUCP (Robert Fenske Jr) writes: > >To me I see that the lobbying is not the issue, but the voters that voted >blindly at the mere suggestion of someone else. [...] > On election day there was a flap in a local election here in Troy. The elections people put the names of the candidates of the wrong district into the little slots in the voting machines. Two hundred and twenty-nine people voted before anybody noticed anything was wrong. They may have to rerun the election. I think it is nice that you want people to vote intelligently, but I would not get my hopes up if I were you. -- The wicked flee when no one pursueth. Mark-Jason Dominus entropy@pawl.rpi.EDU entropy@rpitsmts (BITnet)
fenske@dfsun1.electro.swri.edu (Robert Fenske Jr) (11/13/89)
In article <1437@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: >I mean, what does it mean to say >a "NO voter" is "interested in the question" of sci.aquaria? I mean, >most NO votes have to do with naming questions, cost considerations, >and so on, and perhaps nothing whatever to do with the subject of the >group at hand. So if you accept NO votes that are not based on interest >in the subject, in this case aquaria, then how can you not accept YES >votes of the same sort? No, I meant nothing so restrictive. Certainly, people can have a vested interest (or meta-interest if you will) in factors, such as you listed, not related to the subject of the group. I just wish there would be some way to reject votes that stem from no thought about any matter except that someone asked them to vote or just voting against someone else; which is probably the root of people's beef against the apparent "voting blocks" in the recent sci.aquaria vote. -- Robert Fenske, Jr. Sw | The Taming the C*sm*s series: Electromagnetics Division /R---\ | Southwest Research Institute | I | | "The Martian canals were the dfsun1.electro.swri.edu 129.162.160.4 \----/ | Martian's last ditch effort."