I like this idea and personally would like to see it implemented next year unless it ends up being too much work to implement like Alice said. I wasn't aware of your past experience with this stuff until after I saw that post I linked to. I do agree that there is so much wrong with both America's election systems and our election culture and was trying to say as much, and I suppose that problematic attitude kind of leaked through my own posts as well.Doctor Shemp wrote:If you want to bot it, then the best way to construct it would be an automated poll in which each user either selects an option that's already there or writes in a new one. That way, there's no typos - unless it's the first vote for something - but in that case it's obvious what it's meant to be, and there'll be no split votes from typos. For example, there's no need to count votes for "Doctor Shemp" and "Dr Shemp" and "Dr. Shemp" and "Shemp" and add them together if everyone after the first voter already sees the option "Doctor Shemp" and clicks on that. This imposition of a new method on an old system seems like a guarantee to cock up and have to count it manually anyway.
The "that doesn't make talk like this..." bit and the one towards Bwarch was just me being hypocritical by responding to statements that seemed to be phrased in a broad/vague/pointlessly rude manner... with vague, pointlessly rude statements. And though it wasn't really my intent to try to moderate the discussion like you're saying Bwarch is, I was effectively doing just that. So my apologies about all of that