Forum:Public voting

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Public voting

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6398 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Currently our names are displayed by all votes on uncyclopedia. This is not good. Without a private ballot, we could see a dramatic rise in graft and severe corruption. We don't want a Boss Tweed on our hands, now do we? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Even if private voting is created, the cabal will go through the web server access logs and deal with the.... incorrect voters.--(~Sir)Nuke || Talk v MUN v Not An Admin v Completely Unimportant 22:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with STM. Anonymity is the only way to have true democracy. We should abolish usernames and remove IPs from the logs. --Spin 23:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC) – Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintherism (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe we should also impose a civil service exam for admins and get rid of the patronage system?-- jsonitsac talk to me crimes against humanity13:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Against If I don't know who voted against my articles, how will I know who to 24-year ban? --EvilZak 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Against. How would this work? You can view edit historyies. And someone could easily change another person's vote and nobody'd know. Or suppose someone wanted to change their own vote, and people thought it was some vote-tampering vandal? --User:Nintendorulez 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, it's just not feasible on a wiki. No vote. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this serious or a joke? In the case of the former, I dont think it is at all necessary. Noone controls the way anyone votes but themselves, and if one is so overly worried about other's perceptions so as to change their vote, we probably dont want them to be voting here anyway. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I see how public voting is getting out of hand. For once, I nom'd RudolfRadna for UGOTM.--Jtaylor1 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha I laugh at you! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What does that suppose to mean, STM?--Jtaylor1 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, why would you all abolish current and new users from this site?--Jtaylor1 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Block Voting

I think we need old style labour party blocking voting.

• 20,000 For --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) Representing the "Asscoiated WikiEditors and Allied Trades" 13:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• 2.7 Million For -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) Representing the People's Republic of Liverpool 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• 2,720,001 (can increase as needed) Against. Sorry chaps.--(~Sir)Nuke || Talk v MUN v Not An Admin v Completely Unimportant Representing the full force of Democratic Party of Chicago .... wait, what is the poll question again?03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• 3 Million Against.--Jtaylor1 10:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but as per TUC bylaw 34.56 section b and conference decision 32 of the 1985 Labour party confrence the "Joint Tanners, Allied Yorkshire Lecturers, Organgrinders and Railwaymen union is no longer affilliated with the party for their lack of support of the miners strike and craven pandering to the enemy of the people Mrs. Thatcher!, as such I ask the chair to disregard their votes.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• 9,645,729,048 Reply Hazy, Try Again Later - Representing David Gerard's Socialist Brotherhood of Nanotech Minions 14:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• 1 WTF --User:Nintendorulez 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  {{british}}