From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: OBE Newsgroup Name - CALL FOR VOTES
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:52:49 GMT

In <1992Aug25.164032.19551@gnosys.svle.ma.us> I wrote:

> ...
>
> After a bit of thought, I've come up with the following scheme for deciding
> the outcome of the ballot (after 5 September, when the electronic polls will
> close).  It works as follows:
>
>         1. count the first-choice votes for each of the categories
>
>         2. isolate second choice votes of those who have not voted for
>            either of these categories, and add them in with the first-
>            choice votes already tallied in (1)
>
>         3. collect third-choice votes from anyone who did not vote for
>            either category in their first or second choice votes, and
>            add them in
>
> If anyone else has other suggestions, please post a followup or send me a
> personal note.

I meant to say under (2) "isolate second choice votes of those who have not
voted for either of these categories AS THEIR FIRST-CHOICE VOTE, and add..."

I've received a note from someone who disagrees with the idea of giving non-
first-choice votes the same weight as first-choice votes.  Here's a transcript
of our dialogue so far (edited to protect the identity of that person).  If
anyone else has strong feelings (or any feelings) on the subject, please post
a followup to this article.  Thanks.

(I don't think we'll need to have a vote on how to evaluate the newsgroup-
 naming vote results, but I'm interested in making the outcome as democratic
 as possible, in hopes that there can and will be no objection by any system
 administrators to carrying the newsgroup on grounds that we haven't really
 come to our decision on a well thought-out basis.  But we can get carried
 away with the process, I do realize.)

Also, please let us know if you object to having the names and votes made
public by means of the announcement of results article which will be posted
as soon as possible after the end of the voting period (5 September).  In
any case, if anyone doesn't want his/her vote announced, just include a
note along with your vote to this effect.

Thanks again to everyone who voted (I hope to be able to send out confir-
mations to those who have voted sometime soon) - and do keep those votes
coming in.

Gary

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

| Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 11:11:26 -0400
| To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
| In-Reply-To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us's message of 25 Aug 92 16:40:32 GMT
| Subject: Re: OBE Newsgroup Name - CALL FOR VOTES
 
  [ copy of my voting evaluation suggestions deleted ]
 
| I would suggest that the second choice votes be multiplied by 0.5
| before adding them in, and that the third choice votes be multiplied
| by either 0.33 or 0.25 before adding them in.
|
| Another alternative is to give each first choice vote 3 points, each
| second choice vote 2 points, and each third choice vote 1 point, and
| then total up the points.  Either way, I don't think second choice
| votes should be given the same weight as first choice votes.


| From gst Wed Aug 26 11:50:23 1992
| Subject: Re: OBE Newsgroup Name - CALL FOR VOTES
|
| Thanks for your note, and your suggestions:
|
| > I would suggest that the second choice votes be multiplied by 0.5
| > before adding them in...
|
| > ...I don't think second choice
| > votes should be given the same weight as first choice votes.
|
| The reasoning behind doing so is that it would avoid having to have a
| runoff vote.  I tend to feel that second and third choice votes should
| have the same weight as first choice votes since they're essentially
| answers to the question:  "OK.  Now the rest of you, those who voted
| for something other than one of the top two - given that your choice
| can't possibly win - which of those names would you rather give your
| support to, knowing that your first choice won't make it?"  On what
| grounds do you feel these peoples' votes don't deserve as much weight
| as those who happened to pick one of the newsgroups that will emerge
| as the winner?  (I'm not saying there's no case to be made - I'm just
| not sure what it is.)
|
| Too bad I hadn't thought of this scheme when Ross Perot was still in
| the U.S. Presidential race - could have avoided the vote possibly
| having to be decided in the House, or wherever it is such things get
| decided in the case of no clear majority.  Just a small matter of
| amending the Constitution before the election.  :-)  :-)
|
| Thanks again!
|
| Gary


| To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
| Subject: Re: OBE Newsgroup Name - CALL FOR VOTES 
| In-Reply-To: Your message of 
| 	Wed, 26 Aug 92 11:50:23 -0500.<m0mNPda-0001dqC@gnosys.svle.ma.us> 
|
| > On what
| > grounds do you feel these peoples' votes don't deserve as much weight
| > as those who happened to pick one of the newsgroups that will emerge
| > as the winner?  (I'm not saying there's no case to be made - I'm just
| > not sure what it is.)
|
| I guess I don't like the idea of 20 third place votes for choice #G,
| having higher priority than 12 first place votes for choice #H. 
|
| Or something like that.  In a U.S. election, everyone only votes once
| (for each office), so I think than the first choice vote should hold
| the highest weight.


| From gst Wed Aug 26 12:27:36 1992
| Subject: Re: OBE Newsgroup Name - CALL FOR VOTES
|
| You wrote:
|
| > I guess I don't like the idea of 20 third place votes for choice #G,
| > having higher priority than 12 first place votes for choice #H. 
|
| Right.  I heard you the first time - but I still don't understand what
| it is about an n-th-choice vote (where n != 1) that makes it inherently
| less important than a first-choice vote.  What is it about the fact that
| a person happened not to like one of the first two choices as much as
| the one s/he did vote for that should make him/her ineligible to have as
| much of a voice as anyone else in deciding the actual outcome??  I'm
| not firmly entrenched in a position, I'm just trying to understand
| more about your reasoning.  I'm also willing to put this question up
| for general discussion on the net, since I don't think there are any
| real accepted mechanisms for deciding n-way kinds of matters.
|
| I think we could boil the question down to one of "Do you object to
| having a run-off vote between the first two choices where those who
| voted for one of those choices the first time is prohibited from
| changing his/her vote?"  It seems to me that the scheme I've suggested
| is equivalent to having such a run-off vote.  Let me know if you disagree.
| If not, perhaps answering the question in that form would be easier.
|
| Thanks again.
|
| Gary


| To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
| Subject: Re: OBE Newsgroup Name - CALL FOR VOTES 
| In-Reply-To: Your message of 
| 	Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:27:37 -0500.<m0mNQDb-0000ogC@gnosys.svle.ma.us> 
| Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:57:47 EDT
|
| > Right.  I heard you the first time - but I still don't understand what
| > it is about an n-th-choice vote...
|
| I guess I have this position because when I filled out the vote form,
| I didn't really like my #3 position at all, but I just sort of
| prioritized the choices.  I would not have included #3 on my ballot at
| all if I had known this kind of tabulation would be used. 
|
| So, on a sample ballot, I could say:
|  1) #a
|  2) no group at all
|
| I don't like #b or #c enough to include them on my ballot.
|
| Does that make sense?
|
| I was busy making lists recently where I had to assign numbers to
| everything on a list from 1 to 25, and a lot of those choices were
| quite arbitrary.  I guess I was in the same mindset when I filled out
| the ballot.
|
| > I think we could boil the question down to one of "Do you object to
| > having a run-off vote between the first two choices where those who
| > voted for one of those choices the first time is prohibited from
| > changing his/her vote?"  It seems to me that the scheme I've suggested
| > is equivalent to such a run-off vote.  Let me know if you disagree.
| > If not, perhaps answering the question in that form would be easier.
|
| To that question, I would say:  No, I don't object to that.
| Go ahead with that.


Well, what I was trying to say in my last message to this person is that
I don't see any difference between the results which would be obtained by
having such a run-off vote and tabulating the votes now being submitted as
I previously proposed.  I was not suggesting that we would actually have a
run-off vote, just that we could consider the results from doing things in
the way suggested as those which would be obtained from a run-off vote.  If
one accepts this equivalence, I think agreeing to the run-off is in effect
endorsing the scheme I proposed earlier in which second and third-choice
votes would could with the same weight as first-choice votes.

What do others feel?  (I really don't want to conduct a vote on this matter,
since it seems too easy to get into an "infinite regress" kind of situation.)

Am I making things too complicated??

Gary

--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: alt.oobe