On Dec 14, 1:53 pm, Tom Crispin
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> I wish I had known that. I thought it was one vote per IP address. I
> have and use 6 email addresses, and could create any number of extra
> addresses.
I'm pretty sure it was one vote per phone line and one vote per IP
address whatever that link said. I think that was just sloppy
language. Incidentally, there are ways to change your IP address even
if you have just one computer and one link.
Maximising your votes is not cheating, it's simply exploiting the
rules of the ballot. Similarly with using a voting resource before
someone else of a different persuasion can get to it. It is the silly
system that is inherently unfair, not clued-up voters.
It has been shown many times that cyclists cannot be beaten in this
kind of arrangement. We are too well networked and not a few of us are
technically very able. Bear in mind too that this was a vote in which
many cyclists, including me, did not vote for the obviously pro-
cycling option, seeing it as something of a two-edged sword so
Sustrans' oppostion had it relatively easy. I'm surprised they showed
as well as they did. They must have been using multiple voting.
--
Dave...
