RE: Vote Results: Steak
I supposed I should comment on the output.. here goes:
First off, the original was missing two lines... I've added them back in as if
they were there originally....
> steak results - 29 valid votes
>
This is a header. 29 is the number of votes that didn't have pgp problems, or
ordering problems or anything else that kept the software from understanding
the ballot.
Each option is shown along with any option that it either dominates or ties
with. It stand to reason that if an option does not either dominate or tie an
option, it will be dominated by.
The constitution defines one option as Dominating another option when more
people prefer that option to the other. For example: In the example below,
19 people prefered the "ORIGINAL PROPOSAL" over the "FIRST AMENDMENT" while
only 6 prefered the "FIRST AMENDMENT" over the "ORIGINAL PROPOSAL". The number
doesn't equal 29 (19+6=25) which means that 4 people didn't put a number
for either option.
> ORIGINAL PROPOSAL - Steak is good
> Dominates FIRST AMENDMENT - Steak needs A-one [19 - 6]
>
...
At the end of the first part, the winner (if any) is listed. In this case, no
other option Dominated the "ORIGINAL PROPOSAL" so it won. If it hadn't, the
results of the Single Transferable Vote method of counting would be listed.
> "ORIGINAL PROPOSAL - Steak is good" wins by dominating all others.
After the winner is announced, a list of the voters and what there ballot was
is given.
> steak Final Vote Ack
First comes the "key". This says that the the first column in the "ORGINAL
PROPOSAL", the second column is the "FIRST AMENDMENT" and so forth.
> FURTHER DISUSSION
> --------+
> NONE - Steak Sucks
> -------+|
> BOTH AMENDMENTS - Steak needs all of the above
> ------+||
> SECOND AMENDMENT - Steak needs Heinz fifty seven
> -----+|||
> FIRST AMENDMENT - Steak needs A-one
> ----+||||
> ORIGINAL PROPOSAL - Steak is good
> ---+|||||
>
>||||||
Next comes a list of the voters and how they voted:
> aklein@eskimo.com Adam Klein
> 1-----
Adam Klein (second column) of email address aklein@eskimo.com (first column)
voted and gave, as his first choice, the "ORIGINAL PROPOSAL" and didn't give any
consideration to any other option.
> balmeida@longwood.lwc.edu Brian Almeida
> 12---3
Brian Almeida of email address balmeida@longwood.lwc.edu voted and gave, as his
first option, the "ORIGINAL PROPOSAL"; as his second option, the "FIRST
AMENDMENT" and as his third option, "FURTHER DISCUSSION". He didn't give
consideration to any other option.
> csmall@scooter.o.i.net Craig Small
> 165423
etc....
At the bottom of the second part, is a list of the votes that came in and
couldn't be processed and why.
> Votes in error
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <treacy@debian.org
> ! Bad PGP or not PGP signed
didn't PGP sign the vote. I had pgp checking turned on in the beginning and
then realized I didn't say anything about it in the ballot so I later turned it
off. A number of people voted before I did and this is the result. If they
had voted again, a second time, the the new ballot would have canceled out the
old ballot.
> bn711@freenet.carleton.ca David
> Huggins-Daines
> ! No ballot
Usually caused by deleting something from the area that says "do not delete
between these lines"
Other errors include not numbering or numbering out of order (like have 1 2 and
4 but not giving 3 to choice).
Does that clear this up?
----------------------------------
http://benham.net/index.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++ E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K-
w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++
G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
----------------------------------
Reply to: