Re: Re:[OT] Vote!
Re: Re:[OT] Vote!
- Subject: Re: Re:[OT] Vote!
- From: doug rogers <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:13:23 -0400
This is a good illustration on the reason computers could be better.
I do not believe an election could be won by 2 votes, or 53 votes for
that matter. There should be some statistical significance taken into
account.
What's this got to do with computers? A nation's election law decides
whether
an election can be won with 1 single vote difference, or requires a
larger
margin, or a minimum of 50% of cast votes, or a minimum of 2/3s of
cast
votes. In some countries there will be second or even third rounds
when the
margin is considered too small. In others, a single vote can make the
difference. In yet other systems, a minority can win as if it has a
majority.
This is about election laws, not about which tool you use to
implement them.
I would like the ability to fire the candidates, let's say 2% decide
not
to vote but fire Mr XXXX (put your favourite name there) then the
candidate is eliminated...
In Canada, a few years back, a candidate proposed a platform policy,
which, if 2% of the voters so decided, they could force a binding
referendum and the leaders would have to proceed with "the will of the
people".
Rick Mercer, a comic and satirist, decided that the policy proposal
left policy decisions in the hands of any idiot. He decided to be that
idiot and began a petition to have the candidate change his name from
Stockwell Day to Doris Day.
In a few weeks, his internet petition exceeded the required signatures
by an overwhelming percentage of signatures. The policy was quickly
dropped from the party platform.
There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.
__________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden