+1 for status quo.


On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Rosalyn Metz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> well those three points become useful in the event of a tie.  maybe i see
> that its a tie, and change my mind, remove the 1 point from austin and give
> it to raleigh.  now raleigh has 2 more points than austin and you've
> managed to put raleigh over the top.
>
> not that i've ever done that before........
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > PATCHES WELCOME.
> >
> > -Ross.
> >
> > On Apr 1, 2013, at 12:01 PM, "David J. Fiander" <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So, I just voted for the Code4Lib 2014 location. There are two possible
> > > venues, and I was given three points to apportion however I wish.
> > >
> > > While having multiple votes, to spread around at will, makes a lot of
> > > sense, shouldn't the number of votes each elector is granted be limited
> > > to max(3, count(options)-1)? That is, when voting for a binary, I get
> > > one vote, when voting on a choice of three items, I get two votes, and
> > > for anything more than three choices, I get three votes?
> > >
> > > I mean, realistically, one could give one vote to Austin and two votes
> > > to Raleigh, but why bother?
> >
>