10 Results found for "Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2010-04".

Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-04/Renaming requested entry pages 2

I think it really says something about how we've been doing all these stupid multi-option votes when this vote just ended within the past couple of weeks and we already need another vote to clarify the outcome. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Could be considered like the French presidential elections. After the first round, everybody gets to vote again so that people who voted for candidates who didn't vote for one of the candidates that made the second round can avoid losing their vote. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) That makes no sense whatsoever. They do something like that in Minnesota but they don't need "rounds". They just rank their choices. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Write to the French government, don't tell me about it! Mglovesfun (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I don't care how France runs, but we don't need to follow their example. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) This is the way præseidential elections in all Europæan countries are conducted. The alternative is the system in Gabon, where after the death of Omar Bongo his son got elected with 41% of the vote, whilst the two main contenders combined had 51% of the vote and if united, they could have easily dethroned the Bongo dynasty. Gabon-like voting systems are appalling in comparison with the French, Russian and Bulgarian one (which are the same - a second round is ineluctable, if no candidate has at least 50% of the vote). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) That is not so tragic. One vote was used to pick a winner, another one to confirm a winner. We are in no hurry to rename the pages, and casting another vote is not all that much work for the voter. We can choose a different set up of a multi-option vote next time around. Practice makes perfect. --Dan Polansky 19:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) It's very, very, tragic. I suggest we take the advice at the bottom of the old vote, and just implement the change. No-one is disagreeing, therefore voting wastes people's time (however minimal). Conrad.Irwin 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Voting takes only minimal amount of each person's time, so there is no need to speak of its wasting. Voting is a good thing and should be encouraged instead of shunned. --Dan Polansky 07:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)