Guest,FloraG must have seen the same recent article I noticed (but didn't make notes on) declaring that a careful analysis, including computer simulations, showed "conclusively" that most businesses would do better if persons to be promoted were selected at random.

A series of "studies" (published in a series by Scientific American ca. 1968?) back in ancient times when computer simulations were first practical, fairly conclusively showed that fewer people would be dissatisfied if each person was allowed one vote against a candidate of his/her choice, with the candidate receiving the fewest "black balls" being the one elected. Even better would be having voters each able to vote against half-plus-one of the candidates, if one could figure out how to disallow the "nobody" vote if there were only two candidates.

Of course, even the best method and rules on eligibility can't really triumph over ubiquitous stupidity and ignorance, which - to my observation - aren't really very unevenly distributed between age groups.

John