I think this RECOMMEND-UNRECOMMEND standard should be applied to elections.

[BuyingThyme]

Instead of awarding political office to the person who receives the most votes, we can award it to the person who least rattles the cage.

This is gonna be great!

[Bicoastal]

1. It sure does suck when not everyone shares your opinion, doesn't it? nt

[BuyingThyme]

8. No.

[Bicoastal]

11. Then what's the big deal? So a post doesn't make it to the Greatest Page...

because more people dislike your premise than agree with it. Who cares?

[BuyingThyme]

12. I do. I think it's better when we get to see the stuff which resonates

with people. That's much better than missing the stuff which pisses people off.

And, by the way, the stuff which pisses people off in the beginning commonly becomes mainstream here (impeachment, Iraq withdrawal, Dem votes on habeas corpus...). This new rule will have the effect of dumbing down the conversation at DU.

[Bicoastal]

16. I doubt it will change conversation one way or the other...

...people don't post based on what will make it to the Greatest Page. And the unrecommended threads don't actually get deleted--if they did, maybe I'd agree with you.

[BuyingThyme]

18. It will change the conversation decidedly to the favor of the majority,

as the majority view will be prominently featured on the Greatest and Home pages.

[Bicoastal]

19. If that's the main motivating factor for posting here--attention--then we're in bigger trouble

than I thought.

[BuyingThyme]

21. No, as I said, it's about the conversation.

I think you must have responded to somebody else's post.

[Bicoastal]

24. Conversations here aren't dictated by the Greatest or the Home page--where did you get the idea

that they were? I barely ever LOOK at the Greatest page except when I'm bored and I've run out of things to talk about in GD and/or GDP--and I suspect other people are the same.

Besides, people posting confrontational or controversial material usually KNOW it--I doubt a negative rating or not making it to the Greatest Page will change their decision to stop posting said material.

It won't change a damn thing, except maybe how non-members view the general tone of conversation around here.

[BuyingThyme]

25. Traffic to threads is HUGELY determined by where they appear on the site.

[ContinentalOp]

2. It's called instant runoff voting and it's a good idea. -nt-

[BuyingThyme]

3. No, that's totally different.

[ContinentalOp]

20. Well OK then.

Actually there is a different name for the system where you give an up or down vote for every person on the ballot, but it's basically the same idea. And it's a good one.

[BuyingThyme]

22. None of the above?

[gkhouston]

4. I agree, and I'd like to begin by unrecommending the 2000 election. n/t

[scheming daemons]

6. +1

[BuyingThyme]

7. One vote for Nader.

[ContinentalOp]

23. Well that's a perfect example.

What would the outcome have been if we were allowed to vote yes on Nader, yes on Gore and no on Bush? I'm in favor of such a system.

[reflection]

5. k/u. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

9. Oh, k/u...

It took me a moment.

:hi:

[reflection]

10. I imagine it will become commonplace now.

And although I disagree with your sentiments regarding the unrec feature...

:pals:

[tomm2thumbs]

13. so we are going to see KU..NT a lot now? is that dangerous?

I mean really - !!

[reflection]

14. Hilarious! That never crossed my mind.

:rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

15. They should add an UNKICK feature where you can

post to a thread, but it doesn't kick to the top.

[reflection]

17. Interesting. I'd have to think about that one

before I would go for that.... but it is intriguing.