🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan04.213001.63448@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>I don't think multiple ballots are any more difficult for the
>vote taker.  Many vote takers count ballots by automated software,
>and therefore in that case the vote taker's work is O(1).

Examining the vote results for duplicates is not an easy job. Requiring
two separate votes for two similar proposals will double the effort
required to eliminate dupes. That makes it more difficult.

Requiring two separate ballots for two similar votes will double the
amount of mail that needs to be handled, in both quantity and volume. If
the vote taker is archiving votes and not just tallying results, then
that doubles the amount of material to be archived. While this is not
physically harder for the vote taker, it is more of a hardship on the
system being used to tally the votes. 

>While occasionally it could work the other way, I think
>the benefits of (1) guaranteeing subject lines which are
>both clear and short and (2) avoiding situations like
>the rms vote outweigh any deficiencies. 

If your proposals would do either of these, then they would be
valuable.  Your proposals will not guarantee clear and short subject
lines and will do absolutely nothing to avoid situations like the rms
vote.