Greg Connor wrote:
Julian suggested previously that we include a "none of those
remaining" option for voters to select, and I think this is a
good idea. But, it needs to be explained a bit.
Yes, thanks for the explanation. Admittedly I'd prefer to just
distribute up to five votes on up to five candidates in any way
I like (say c1 c2 c3 c4 c6 or as an extreme case c6 c6 c6 c6 c6
if all I care about is getting c6 "in").
For the latter I'd now pick c6 on place one, and all remaining
on a lower place, say three. Depending on how "grumpy" I feel
at this moment I'd add "none of those remaining" on place two
or four.
Out of curiosity, what happens if "none of those remaining" is
on place three together with some candidates, is that the same
as place "three and three quarters" ?
Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com