Hello Vladimir.

21 Apr 06 11:01, you wrote to me:

 VD>>> Choices of answers:

 MV>> Oh boy, ... you really have NO idea how to properly conduct a
 MV>> referendum do you? A referendum should always have a simple
 MV>> unambiguous question with just a yes/no answer.

 VD> I have explained earlier, that to us it was important not only to
 VD> receive the answer yes/is not present, but also to find out a concrete
 VD> variant of structure of a new zone.

And by doing that you made the outcome subject to interpretation and
thereby invalid. You should have asked a simple unambiguos question with
only a yes or no answer.

 MV>> Multiple answers are a sure way to failure as I will demonstrate.

 VD>>>  Choice €1 -- 140

 MV>> So only 140 out of 561 = 25%  voted in favour of this option ->
 MV>> Rejected.

 VD>>>  Choice €2 --  68

 MV>> So only 68 out of 561 = 12% voted in favour of this option. ->
 MV>> Rejected.

 VD>>> _A3_
 VD>>> I am agree with both of "A1" and "A2".

 VD>>>  Choice €3 -- 146

 MV>> So only 146 out of 561 = 26% voted in favour of this option ->
 MV>> Rejected.

 VD> All the above-stated variants mean the consent with creation of a zone

No. Answer 1 and 2 are for the creation of a zone with *additional* conditions.

 VD> and as to choose for the answer it was possible only one - voices with
 VD> similar subjects are summarized.

 VD> So A1+A2+A3 = 354 votes and "yes" for creation zone.

No, only answer 3 is for the creation of a zone without additional
conditions. Only 146 votes for that one.

 MV>> It appears that all the options were rejected.

 VD> No.

Yes. Not one of the four possible answers got a majority.

You can not add the numbers for the choices as some are mutually exclusive.

 MV>> Sorry mate, you blew it.

 VD> You have not understood a principle of this referendum.

It is you that fails to understand: that by not asking for one simple
yes/no answer you made the referendum fail.

Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315