Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:41:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:30:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > case in point: as we add more voters that actively vote _against_ a
> > > proposal, we can cause an option to ``fail to meet quorum.''
> > This is completely false.
> Proposed change:
> A.6.3 Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
...which doesn't talk about quorum at all. What was that about "misleading
at best, or outright false at face value" ?
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''