On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:25:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I would place a much higher premium on
> the ability to change ones mind given fresh information, rather than
> having my vote be writ in stone. If there is new information that
> would change my mind, I would rather I had an opportunity to act on
> this new information, rather than be ignorant and learn about it
> after the fact.
It's reasonably common in real life voting to limit campaigning in the
days before the actual election. The reason's probably to ensure people
have time to get to the truth behind any last minute accusations: you
don't want to have people get told "Papparazzi say John Random has what
looks to be a tattoo of Hitler blazoned across his back!", and vote based
on that information only to find out two days later it was an outright
lie, or a craftily misinterpreted birthmark.
Given a three week voting period it's not clear that this is such an
issue; but making sure that all the information needed to cast your vote
is available by a given time certainly makes sense.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature