[r6rs-discuss] required explanations

Lynn Winebarger owinebar at gmail.com
Thu Aug 16 23:38:48 EDT 2007


On 8/16/07, John Nowak <john at johnnowak.com> wrote:
> I would just like to briefly express my intense irritation that an explanation was required only for "no" votes. Those voting yes can do so easily without even reading the draft, while those that wanted to vote no had the pressure of publicly justifying their vote on technical grounds. I would not be surprised if there are many that would have voted "no" in the same way many voted "yes" if a coherent explanation wasn't required.
>
> Requiring explanations either way would have been a start. Requiring explanations for neither would have been the proper way to do it. The only way in which the system used might have been reasonable would have been if the electorate were smaller and precisely chosen. As it is now, there are many people voting yes without any hint either in their explanations (or lack thereof) or in mailing list posts that they've even read the thing. What a joke!

You must have missed:
 http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ratification-discuss
I found the following posts particularly interesting
http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/ratification-discuss/2007-April/000014.html
 http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/ratification-discuss/2007-July/000020.html

     Your conjecture about people who "would have" voted no seems
unlikely -- unless it turns out, whenever the voting is announced,
that the margin of success corresponded to people who sent in "no"
votes after the deadline because they had difficulty with the task.  I
definitely find it hard to believe people who wanted to vote "no"
would send in "yes" votes just to avoid the effort!  Perhaps they
might not have registered, but all of the electorate had to manage 150
words....

Lynn



More information about the r6rs-discuss mailing list