Group definition in transitive vote flows

[Thomas von der Elbe]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:14, Michael Allan wrote:
> 5. "What about your initial vote? Should it be:"
>        (a) a copy of A's vote?
>        (b) for A?
>        (c) for someone else?
>        (d) for nobody?
>
> But this is problematic, isn't it?  N will be alarmed at this point
> and unsure how to respond.  The safest bet seems to be (d), but
> actually that's the worst choice.  If you don't cast an initial vote,
> then the tools won't work the same as they do for others.  We cannot
> easily correct that in the software.  Voting is a crucial formality
> for large polls, and we can't easily have different software for small
> polls.

What would be the limitations? The diff-bridge should still work, right? 
Only the mini-votespace would be empty, right? But I guess, thats enough 
of a reason.

>    But what if we add something like this to step 5, instead:
>
>       "A recommends that you choose (a).  A says, 'Welcome N!  We
>        recommend voting for the common text because the software will
>        be easier to use if your vote initially matches ours.  Don't
>        worry, you can always shift your vote later!'"
>
> So a voting recommendation for newcomers.  You encode it in your
> position page and it's shown to anyone who creates a draft off yours.
> The idea is to ease entry for newcomers by reducing the barriers.

Yes, that is a good solution!

Thomas