 |
 |
+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? > > >