10-06-2017, 08:47 PM
True, but if sibling A proposed the death penalty by electrocution and sibling B by gas chamber and opponent was against the death penalty you elect someone against the death penalty but the majority want it: only differing in method. If there were 2 anti-death penalty opponents that split the vote then you get the death penalty that most seem to want. Here, if there was something very similar to sperm bank, strip poker would have been top.
I think that allowing the top 4 to go through is the best solution. It’s not good to change the announced voting procedure during the vote but there does appear to be a flaw which it is better to address than carry on regardless. It is only the top 2 from each site that have any chance of winning so there is no need to include more.
Respectfully, I think you are wrong about the talk influencing the vote. It was only when the majority of votes were cast that the problem became apparent although JohnSins did point it out early on. What really influences voting is publishing the votes already cast. If I favour blackjack over poker but don’t want sperm bank and see poker running neck and neck with sperm bank I vote poker.
I think that allowing the top 4 to go through is the best solution. It’s not good to change the announced voting procedure during the vote but there does appear to be a flaw which it is better to address than carry on regardless. It is only the top 2 from each site that have any chance of winning so there is no need to include more.
Respectfully, I think you are wrong about the talk influencing the vote. It was only when the majority of votes were cast that the problem became apparent although JohnSins did point it out early on. What really influences voting is publishing the votes already cast. If I favour blackjack over poker but don’t want sperm bank and see poker running neck and neck with sperm bank I vote poker.