Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The major problem, as I see it, is that we have not yet
> conducted enough votes, and on enough different _kinds_ of options,
> to convincingly determine what fraction of voters typically change
> their minds, and to build a safe buffer in determining when a vote is
> not in doubt.
Plus, "change their mind" includes "... about not voting at all". In other
words, the vote needs to be nearly unanimous for there to be a safe buffer.
There is another problem here, which is far worse IMHO. For somebody to
declare that an early end is possible, that person needs to have inside
knowledge about the votes cast so far. In order not to influence the
election, that knowledge can't be shared before the vote is over. This means
that there cannot be any public or even semi-public discourse about whether
or not it is safe to end the vote, and _that_ is a Bad Thing.
To summarize: We declare that the vote period is N days. We should stick to
it, unless we have a very good reason not to (which needs to outweigh the
problems with cutting a vote short). I haven't seen one yet.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Consulting @ m-u-it.de | smurf@smurf.noris.de
Disclaimer: Das Zitat wurde zufällig ausgewählt. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Letzte Worte von A. Senna:
"Irgendetwas klappert da."
Attachment:
pgpoqNtYm8kFq.pgp
Description: signature