In article <1992Mar1.002950.12342 at anat.UMSMED.EDU>, tpm at anat.UMSMED.EDU (Terence P. Ma) writes:
[...stuff deleted]
> I rarely post to bionet (get it through USENET). As a systems
> administrator as well as a scientist, I find that time disappears
> faster than I'd like when dealing with issues on-line. For example,
> I often do not have the time to detail my thoughts on a particular
> issue, but may feel strongly for/against it. Other times, someone
> expresses my point of view and I don't want to repeat it and use up
> the every decreasing bandwidth. I strongly feel that NO votes are
> valuable. Furthermore, I also feel that the YES - NO paradigm is
> appropriate. Perhaps the third option is that instead of making
> passage be YES - NO where YES > 80, a smaller number of votes should
> be required, say 50. From what I have read of the discussion, I
> never saw a real justification that the number of YES votes for a
> group should be increased, other than it was from a long time ago.
> So, if it isn't really causing a problem, why change?
>
Maybe a simple solution would be YES minus NO of at least 50
If Dave Kristofferson was willing to propose 80 YES votes as the
target, my formula could only negate 80 YES votes by the casting
of 30 NO votes (which would surely have significance). We might get a few
things slipping though at e.g. 60 YES to 10 NO but I'm sure that the NO's
will stop the sillier proposals.
--
' Jonathan B. Marder
Internet: MARDER at AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL : Department of Agricultural Botany
Bitnet: MARDER at HUJIAGRI : /\/ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Phone: (08 or +9728) 481918 :/ \ Faculty of Agriculture
Fax: (08 or +9728) 467763 / P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
