J.

By now the voting can really be considered to be contaminated by clearly trying to have ZORRO overtaken.

I think it should be forwarded to Ken L. as one of:
1) ZORRO
2) It remains up to you, Ken. We can't decide.

JimN

>-snip-
>
>I would agree. Some of the suggestions here didn't make it to fox.wikis, and a lot of the votes here are not there either.
>
>I for one submitted my suggestion and vote to the wiki page only to be overwritten by somebody else's post.
>
>Whoever created the wiki page should have considered all of the proposals here (and even updating/mirroring) to make it a valid way of counting the votes. With that said, the votes and suggestions should have stayed here, maybe in the form of a UT document.
>
>I'm not trying to raise a big stink here, just adding my .02.
>
>>
>>Evan,
>>
>>I always thought that "concensus" was a goal if majority could NOT be achieved. A majority should rightly overrule "concensus" any time.
>>
>>This "resetting" of the vote is problematic for a couple of reasons:
>>
>>1) People are forced to re-visit to have another vote recorded. Many will feel that they have made their vote and move on, not realizing that a new vote has now been called.
>>
>>2) People who didn't vote for the current leader, "Zorro", in the first place now get a second voice for a different choice. Sure, the "Zorro" voters have the same "right", but now to keep their choice on top they must vote for it again. There is obvious unfairness here.
>>
>>All this amount to the minority looking for ways to overrule the majority. I know that there could be an argument that the only "majority" is one where a the count for the "winner" is 50%+1 of the total count. But we all know that, in reality, in this kind of vote, it is the higher number that wins regarless of ratios. I'm sure that virtually all vote casters expected it to operate as the biggest number wins.
>>
>>Those who don't like Zorro (I'm not fond of it but can certainly accept it) ought to just lick their wounds and let it be. If it wins on the basis of the ORIGINAL counting methodology, then so be it.
>>
>>I thought that it was nice to have the opportunity to have a say in the new code name in the first place. IF steamrolling to a specific choice is what's going to happen then I would rather toss the problem back to Ken L. and let him come up with a name by some OTHER means.
>>
>>JimN