mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) (11/30/89)
[ Here's the first installment of my survey results. The STV results will follow in a day or so, then a summary of the comments which were sent to me. In case you were wondering, I'm posting this at home, at work I'm still markw@GVL.Unisys.COM. Thanks to everyone who participated, and to my poor, groaning 3b1 which is churning through this stuff - Mark ] Here's the first set of results for the newsgroup guideline change survey. This is the Approval Voting (MAUVE) results. There were 116 total votes. So, in order of highest to lowest approval rating (YES votes as a percentage of total votes cast), we have: Prop. Proposal Description Approval Disapproval ## % % ---- --------------------------------------------------- ------ ----- 2) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio 71 20 Note: 1 11) Independent vote counters 63 9 7) MAUVE multiple voting scheme 44 25 8) STV multiple voting scheme 44 28 9) Newsgroup Committee 38 39 6) Hold name vote for popular but controversial groups 37 34 12) Trial Newsgroups 34 41 3) Less restrictive requirements for moderated groups 33 32 1) Raise NO vote threshold to 200 27 51 5) Hold preliminary name vote for all groups 21 49 10) Newgroup Czar (make a single person net.god) 16 57 14) Any change 14 51 Note: 2 4) 100 NO's vetoes a new group 13 54 13) No change 7 74 Note: 3 Note: 1 - This is in addition to the current 100 more yes than no requirement. In early versions of the survey, this was not explained clearly. If you included a note or a write-in vote indicating you would support proposal 2 if it was in addition to the current rule, I included your vote here. Note: 2 - Some people mis-interpreted the instructions here. A YES here should just be shorthand for yes for all groups. I didn't score it this way, you can if you want. This is probably the least meaningful result of the survey. Note: 3 - This could be called the real winner. Most people feel that some change is required. Raw vote: -------- Prop. Proposal Description YES NO ABSTAIN 2) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio 82 23 11 11) Independent vote counters 73 10 33 8) STV multiple voting scheme 51 32 33 7) MAUVE multiple voting scheme 51 29 36 9) Newsgroup Committee 44 45 27 6) Hold name vote for popular but controversial groups 43 40 33 12) Trial Newsgroups 40 47 29 3) Less restrictive requirements for moderated groups 38 37 41 1) Raise NO vote threshold to 200 25 59 32 5) Hold preliminary name vote for all groups 24 57 35 10) Newgroup Czar 18 66 32 14) Any change 16 59 41 4) 100 NO's vetoes a new group 15 62 39 13) No change 8 86 41 Thanks again, to all these folks: --------------------------------- N Y N N N Y A A A N Y N N N From: "A.P. Horne" <cse7116@sys.uea.ac.uk> A Y A N N Y N A N N Y A A A From: dwillis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Alden) N Y N A Y Y Y N Y A Y N N Y From: asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N Y From: nih-csl!elsie!ado (Arthur David Olson) Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y From: bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu (B Maruti) N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N From: bard@cs.cornell.edu (Bard Bloom) N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y N N From: burdvax!cbmvax!uunet!belal (Bela Lubkin) A Y A N A A Y Y A Y A A N A From: Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> N Y N Y Y N Y N A N Y N N N From: sluka@stoch.fmi.uni-passau.de (Bernd Sluka) A Y Y Y N N A A Y Y Y Y N A From: Bill Sommerfeld <wesommer@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> N A A N N N Y N Y N Y N A A From: Bob Sloane <SLOANE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> N Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N A From: ames!claris!bar (Bourne-again Roy) N N Y A N N N N Y Y Y Y A A From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) A A A A A A A A Y Y A Y A A From: Bret Jolly <troly@math.ucla.edu> A Y A A A A A A A A A A A A From: bryce@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bryce Nesbitt) Y N N N N N N N N Y Y Y A N From: cals@cals01.Newport.RI.US (Charles A. Sefranek) N Y A N Y N N N A A Y N N N From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) A Y A N A A Y Y N A A A N A From: clewis%eci386@uunet.UU.NET (Chris Lewis) N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N From: rafferty@macbeth.crd.ge.com (Colin Owen Rafferty) Y Y Y N N N Y N N N A N N N From: cew@ISI.EDU (Craig E. Ward) N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N A N N N From: Dale C. Cook <cook@pinocchio.encore.com> N N N A N N Y Y Y N Y Y A A From: Dan Bernstein <brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> N Y Y N A N Y Y A A A N N N From: Dan Veditz <dveditz@ashtate.A-T.COM> N Y Y A N N Y N N N Y Y N A From: csu@alembic.ACS.COM (Dave Mack) N Y N N N N A N Y N N N N N From: davidbe@sco.COM (David Bedno) N Y Y A N Y A A Y N Y N N Y From: David C Lawrence <tale@pawl.rpi.edu> N Y N A N Y A Y N N Y N N Y From: David Chalmers <dave@cogsci.indiana.edu> Y Y Y A N Y Y Y N N Y N N Y From: djgrabin@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Joseph Grabiner) A N A A A A A A Y A A A A A From: david@indetech.com (David Kuder) N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N N From: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk> N Y N Y N N A Y N N A N N N From: David Wright <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> A Y A N A A Y Y N A A A N A From: isaak!woerz%zuse@uunet.UU.NET (Dieter Woerz) Y Y A N N N Y N N N Y N N N From: prosun!diko%delta5@relay.EU.net (Dietmar Koop) N Y A A A Y A Y Y Y A N N N From: csvax.caltech.edu!mangler (Don Speck) A Y A Y A A Y Y N A A A N A From: stuart@natinst.com (Don Stuart) A Y Y N A A A A Y N Y Y N N From: Dwane Aldrich <aldrich@blake.acs.washington.edu> N Y N A Y Y A A Y Y Y Y N Y From: edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) N Y N A A A A A A N N Y N N From: Fraser S. <fraser@lake.scar.utoronto.ca> N Y Y A A N Y Y N N Y Y N N From: GWOLLMAN <GWOLLMAN@JHUVMS.BITNET> N Y Y Y N Y A A Y Y Y N A Y From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) N Y N N N N Y N Y N Y N N A From: Geoff Allen <geoff@uunet.uu.net> N N N A Y A N N N N A Y Y A From: mitchell@community-chest.mitre.org (George Mitchell) A Y N A N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y From: woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) Y Y Y N Y N A Y N N Y Y N N From: wolves.uucp!ggw@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) Y Y Y N N N A Y A N Y N N N From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) N N N N N A N A Y N Y N N N From: howard@hasse.ericsson.se (Howard Gayle) Y Y N N A A Y Y N N Y A N N From: Ian Dickinson (Vato) <cudep@cu.warwick.ac.uk> N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N From: ilana@cgdra.UCAR.EDU (Ilana Stern) A Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N From: flatline!jet (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan) Y Y N N N N A Y Y N Y N N N From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@cad.usna.mil> A Y A A A A Y Y Y A A A N A From: Jay Maynard <splut.conmicro.com!jay> N A A A N N Y Y A N Y N N Y From: coolidge@cato.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) N Y A N N Y Y Y Y Y A Y N N From: uunet!eci386!jmm (John Macdonald) N Y A N N A Y A Y N Y A A A From: John.Ockerbloom@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU A A N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y A A From: Jonathan Story <Jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca> A N A N A A Y A N A A A N A From: Just another theatre geek... <gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu> Y Y N N Y A Y N A A Y Y N N From: Keith Brazington <cix.cix.uucp!keithb@relay.EU.net> A A A A A A A A A A A A Y A From: amiga!kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim E. DeVaughn) Y Y Y N N N A Y Y N Y Y N N From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) A A A A A A Y A A A A A A A From: lmb7421@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Les Barstow: Phoenix) N N A A N N Y A N N Y N Y N From: "MICHAEL KASPAR" <kaspar@chewi.che.wisc.edu> N Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N N N From: Maarten Litmaath <maart@cs.vu.nl> A Y A A A Y Y Y Y A Y Y A N From: Mark Brader <msb@sq.sq.com> N Y A A N N Y N A A A A N Y From: mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) A N A A A A N A A A A A Y N From: msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) N Y A A A A Y A N N A N N N From: Mark Sirota <msir@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> N Y A Y N Y A A Y Y A Y N Y From: austern@ux1.lbl.gov (Matthew Austern) A A A N A A Y Y N A A A Y N From: russotto@mordor.eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) Y Y N N N Y N N N N N N A N From: Michele Marques <michele@nexus.yorku.ca> N Y Y N Y Y Y A A N Y A N A From: jennifer@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Moira K Nightfall) N Y Y A N Y Y Y Y Y A Y A A From: Monica.Cellio@nl.cs.cmu.edu A Y N A N N A A N N Y A N A From: Neil Readwin <miclon!nreadwin@relay.EU.net> N Y Y N Y N N Y A N N N N N From: burdvax!cbmvax!uunet!scifi!njs (Nicholas J. Simicich) Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N From: "Paul D. Crowley" <aipdc%castle.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> Y Y N N Y N N Y A N Y N N A From: Paul Digby <pgd@dsbc.icl.stc.co.uk> Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) Y Y Y N A A A Y N N Y A A N From: amiga!paul@oliveb.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Paul Hudson) N N Y N N A A Y Y N A N N N From: pell@isy.liu.se A N A A A A N A Y A A A N A From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@boulder.Colorado.EDU> N Y N A N N Y A Y A Y Y N N From: rwg@Solbourne.COM (Rick Gillespie) Y Y N Y N Y N N N N Y Y N N From: razeh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Robert A. Zeh) N Y A N N Y A Y Y A Y Y N N From: Roger Hale <roger@ll-vlsi.arpa> N Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y A A From: xanadu!STella@uunet.uu.net A A A A A A A A A A A Y A A From: stan@floyd.ATT.COM (Stan King) N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y Y Y N From: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) Y Y Y N N Y N N N N Y N N N From: Steve Simmons <scs@vax3.iti.org> N Y A N Y Y N Y N N Y N N N From: srb@homxb.att.com (Steven R Bodenstab) N Y Y N N Y N N N N Y Y N N From: etxtsg@solsta.ericsson.se (Thomas Grennefors) N N Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y N N N From: tar@rigel.cis.ksu.edu (Tim Ramsey) Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N A From: Tom Haapanen <tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu> N Y Y N A A N N A N Y Y N N From: Tony Plate <tap@ai.toronto.edu> N Y Y N N N N N Y A Y Y N N From: W C Newell Jr <WCN@MAX.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU> N N A N Y Y A Y A A Y Y N N From: W. Keith Lowe <burdvax!cbmvax!uunet!lowe!lowe> A Y A Y A A N Y Y A A A N A From: bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox) Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N N N N From: amos@taux01.nsc.com Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y N N N From: celit!billd@celerity.fps.com A Y A A A A Y A N A A A N A From: cs127050@cs.brown.edu A Y A N A A A Y Y A A A N A From: dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca A Y A A A A A A A A A A A A From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N From: dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil N Y A A A Y A A A A Y A A A From: bdgltd!ela@uunet.uu.net A Y N A A A A A N N Y A N Y From: pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N From: jbillone@jarthur.Claremont.edu N A A N Y Y N N A N Y N A A From: jdrew@cs.uoregon.edu N N N A N N Y Y N N Y N A A From: ficc!jeffd@uunet.uu.net Y Y Y A A Y A A A A Y Y N A From: laura@jarthur.Claremont.edu A Y A A A A Y A A A A A N A From: bpa!att!ll1a!cej Y Y Y N Y N A Y N N Y N N N From: mackeown%compsci.bristol.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK Y N A N N N A Y N N Y Y N N From: moore%BETELGEUSE.CS.UTK.EDU@cs.utk.edu N Y A N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y From: burdvax!psuvax1!gatech!wuarchive!ntvax!jbeard N N Y N Y N A N N N Y N Y N From: bpa!dsinc!pacbell!pbhyf!lfog A A Y N N Y Y A N N N N N N From: bpa!dsinc!pacbell!ptsfa!jmc A Y Y N A Y Y Y A N Y Y N A From: smm12@cl.cam.ac.uk N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N From: steved@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu N Y N A N Y A N Y A Y A N Y From: urlichs%smurf.ira.uka.de@RELAY.CS.NET A A A A A A A A A A A A Y A From: wbt@cbnews.att.com -- Mark H. Weber ( mhw@Schuylkill.Canal.Org ) "Schuylkill" is a Dutch word ( ...!uunet!lgnp1!lock60!mhw ) meaning "hidden river" ( ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw )
mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) (12/05/89)
[This is part 2. Still to come are comments and conclusions.] Here's the second set of results for the newsgroup guideline change survey. This is the Single Transferable Voting (STV) results. There were 68 total votes. The winning proposal is: 2) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio (Note 1) Further analysis, which would be similar to the procedure for selecting multiple winners (as in a Board of Directors) shows the following top 6 choices: Round 1 - 2) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio (Note 1) 2 - 8) STV multiple voting scheme 3 - 11) Independent vote counters 4 - 7) MAUVE multiple voting scheme 5 - 6) Hold name vote for popular but controversial groups 6 - 9) Newsgroup Committee To refresh your memory for comparison, here are the top 6 MAUVE winners: Prop. Proposal Description Approval Disapproval ## % % ---- --------------------------------------------------- ------ ----- 2) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio 71 20 Note: 1 11) Independent vote counters 63 9 7) MAUVE multiple voting scheme 44 25 8) STV multiple voting scheme 44 28 9) Newsgroup Committee 38 39 6) Hold name vote for popular but controversial groups 37 34 Note: 1 - This would be in addition to the current 100 more yes than no requirement. In early versions of the survey, this was not explained clearly. If you included a note or a write-in vote indicating you would support proposal 2 if it was in addition to the current rule, I included your vote here. Raw vote: (Note that the proposal (1-13) has been replaced with a letter (A-M) -------- The letter N indicates no further choices were expressed). Prop. Proposal Description ## ---- --------------------------------------------------- A) Raise NO vote threshold to 200 B) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio C) Less restrictive requirements for moderated groups D) 100 NO's vetoes a new group E) Hold preliminary name vote for all groups F) Hold name vote for popular but controversial groups G) MAUVE multiple voting scheme H) STV multiple voting scheme I) Newsgroup Committee J) Newgroup Czar K) Independent vote counters L) Trial Newsgroups M) No change N) No preference Thanks again to all these people: -------------------------------- FKBAHMGCLIJDE From: dwillis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Alden) DAEFMBGHIJKCL From: nih-csl!elsie!ado@uunet.UU.NET (Arthur David Olson) ABKGICEFLHJDM From: bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu (B Maruti) ICGLHKJMFEABD From: bard@cs.cornell.edu (Bard Bloom) HFCBLKGMADEIJ From: burdvax!cbmvax!uunet!belal (Bela Lubkin) BEGKIDCFHMLAJ From: sluka@stoch.fmi.uni-passau.de (Bernd Sluka) GIBMNNNNNNNNN From: Bob Sloane <SLOANE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> LBHFEKJIGDCAM From: ames!claris!bar (Bourne-again Roy) JKAMLFGNNNNNN From: cals@cals01.Newport.RI.US (Charles A. Sefranek) EFGHKLMBCADIJ From: Dale C. Cook <cook@pinocchio.encore.com> BHGCEMKFLIJAD From: Dan Veditz <dveditz@ashtate.A-T.COM> BIMGAHKJLFEDC From: davidbe@sco.COM (David Bedno) BFIKNNNNNNNNN From: David C Lawrence <tale@pawl.rpi.edu> HKGFIECLMABJD From: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk> HGDEFKCBMKIAJ From: David Wright <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> HBJFGIECKDLMA From: ames!elroy!csvax.caltech.edu!mangler (Don Speck) BKLFEIJCDGMHA From: edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) BKFEDCAGHMIJL From: Fraser S. <fraser@lake.scar.utoronto.ca> HGKEBCDJLMFIA From: GWOLLMAN <@JHMAIL.HCF.JHU.EDU:GWOLLMAN@JHUVMS.BITNET> IGBKMLCDAFHJE From: Geoff Allen <geoff@uunet.uu.net> ELBMKCDAFGHIJ From: mitchell@community-chest.mitre.org (George Mitchell) ABHGIMCDEFJKL From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) IKFHMABCDEGJL From: howard@hasse.ericsson.se (Howard Gayle) BHAGKFECLDMIJ From: Ian Dickinson (Vato) <cudep@cu.warwick.ac.uk> BFHGIKCELMJDA From: ilana@cgdra.UCAR.EDU (Ilana Stern) HGBIKECLMAJDF From: flatline!jet (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan) HECKIBNNNNNNN From: J G Miller <miller@ria.ccs.uwo.ca> BAEKHIFCMGLDJ From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@cad.usna.mil> GIKMBAEDJNNNN From: John.Ockerbloom@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU LIKGHBAMJFEDC From: Jonathan Story <Jonathan@jspc.wimsey.bc.ca> AIBLKCDMJEFHG From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) BEKFGIMCADHJL From: bdgltd!ela IJHGBFLEKMCAD From: Mark Brader <msb@sq.sq.com> GBCEHKDAFLMIJ From: Mark Sirota <msir@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> BIJFDLEKCHGAM From: austern@ux1.lbl.gov (Matthew Austern) ABFELKHGMNNNN From: Michele Marques <michele@nexus.yorku.ca> EKGFBCIALMDHJ From: jennifer@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Moira K Nightfall) EFHCBADMJKLIG From: burdvax!cbmvax!uunet!scifi!njs (Nicholas J. Simicich) HKLEFCGMBADIJ From: "Paul D. Crowley" <aipdc@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk> EABHKICDJMFGL From: Paul Digby <pgd@dsbc.icl.stc.co.uk> BKHIJLEFAMGCD From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) ABHCEFGKLMJID From: amiga!paul@oliveb.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Paul Hudson) ICHGMBADEFLKJ From: pell@isy.liu.se ABDFKLMCEGHIJ From: razeh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Robert A. Zeh) BHIFLCGMJKEAD From: Roger Hale <roger@ll-vlsi.arpa> BKLGHMFEIJDAC From: xanadu!STella@uunet.uu.net HBCKLMFEAIGJD From: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) BACIKFGHDMEJL From: Steve Simmons <scs@vax3.iti.org> EBKHAFCGMDLIJ From: srb@homxb.att.com (Steven R Bodenstab) FBKCLEGHIJDAM From: etxtsg@solsta.ericsson.se (Thomas Grennefors) HGICDBKJFEALN From: tar@rigel.cis.ksu.edu (Tim Ramsey) HIBGJDFAKCELM From: Tom Haapanen <tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu> IBKLCMADEFGHN From: W C Newell Jr <WCN@MAX.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU> LKFEHCGIJMBAD From: W. Keith Lowe <burdvax!cbmvax!uunet!lowe!lowe> ABHGIMCDEFJKL From: celit!billd@celerity.fps.com ILGHKJNNNNNNN From: dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil BGFKLHMDEIJNN From: burdvax!burdvax!bpa!dsinc!pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen BHGFIEKJNNNNN From: jbillone@jarthur.Claremont.edu BAFCKLGHDIEJM From: laura@jarthur.Claremont.edu AKHBCEFGLDIJM From: mackeown%compsci.bristol.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK LKIHACGMDEFBJ From: moore%BETELGEUSE.CS.UTK.EDU@cs.utk.edu GHIJBLMKFECDA From: burdvax!psuvax1!gatech!wuarchive!ntvax!jbeard MLKGIHCEFBJAD From: bpa!dsinc!pacbell!pbhyf!lfog IGDHBAFCJMKLE From: ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net CFGABHMLIEDKG From: bpa!dsinc!pacbell!ptsfa!jmc FGHKBIECLMNNN From: smm12@cl.cam.ac.uk BIKGFDACMJLHE From: urlichs%smurf.ira.uka.de@RELAY.CS.NET BCKHGAMIJDFEL From: Tovah Hollander <cepu!jmegen!tovah@SEAS.UCLA.EDU> -- Mark H. Weber ( mhw@Schuylkill.Canal.Org ) "Schuylkill" (skool' kill) Mont Clare ( ...!uunet!lgnp1!lock60!mhw ) is a Dutch word meaning PA USA ( ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw ) "hidden river"
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (12/06/89)
Mark H. Weber (mhw@Schuylkill.Canal.Org) writes: STV results: > Round 1 - 2) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio (Note 1) > 2 - 8) STV multiple voting scheme ... > 4 - 7) MAUVE multiple voting scheme ... MAUVE results: >Prop. Proposal Description Approval Disapproval > ## % % >---- --------------------------------------------------- ------ ----- > 2) Add check for 2:1 Yes:No ratio 71 20 Note: 1 ... > 7) MAUVE multiple voting scheme 44 25 > 8) STV multiple voting scheme 44 28 ... Hmmm.... Between STV and MAUVE, STV placed higher in the STV vote, and MAUVE placed higher in the MAUVE vote. Rather interesting, no? -- Geoff Allen \ Driggs, Idaho -- cultural hub of the west! {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \ (Tom Harper in rec.skiing)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/07/89)
In article <888@pmafire.UUCP> geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) writes: > Between STV and MAUVE, STV placed higher in the STV vote, and MAUVE placed > higher in the MAUVE vote. Makes sense. Approval Voting fans are more likely to respond to an approval vote, and STV fans are more likely to respond to an STV vote. (btw, I voted both methods) -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "If you want PL/I, you know where to find it." -- Dennis
dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (12/13/89)
There were a few interesting results of this survey. The first (fairly comforting) result was that the top six were the same in both STV and Alien's MAUVE scheme (with slight differences in order). If we eventually adopt either of these voting systems we can feel confident that the winner is really the one with the most support in most cases. There are pathological cases, but they are not going to be as much of a problem as cases of abuse (cf. your fave net.controversy). I also noticed that the STV results gave me no feel for how well supported any of the top 6 items were. I suppose I could have gone through the votes and tabulated them, but Alien's scheme gave nice X-number of YES votes, Y-number of NO votes answers. The MAUVE summary clearly showed that there wasn't very much support for most of the top 6. In fact, the only items that *might* pass a current style vote at this point are the 2:1 ratio addition (btw, how's that going, Greg?) and perhaps the independent vote takers (which we already have volunteers for). -Dan uunet!ashtate!dveditz dveditz@ashtate.A-T.COM
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/14/89)
In article <331@dbase.UUCP> dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) writes: > I also noticed that the STV results gave me no feel for how well > supported any of the top 6 items were. That's because he didn't report sufficient results. Have a look at the results of my *.AQUARIA poll for a more complete information. After all, he could have reported the approval voting results the same way, leaving you equally in the dark. Also, this poll wasn't for choosing a single winner... it was for choosing a set of options, with no clear idea of how many of them would be implemented, if any. For that, approval voting is better. For choosing a single winner, STV works better. Particularly if it's accompanied by a simple YES/NO existence vote (as it was in my talk.computers poll). -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com