You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

University of Iowa researchers are part of a team that found a single loud voice can skew the result of voice votes, a common decision-making feature in American public life. Credit: Sondra Cue of University of Iowa The louder the voice, the cloudier the choice: So says research led by the University of Iowa, which found that a single loud voice can skew the result of voice votes, a common decision-making feature in American public life. 
  
 Voice voting is used at civic, local, and county governmental meetings. It's also employed regularly in Congress (especially the Senate) and in state legislatures to pass resolutions. The format is simple: A presiding officer states a question, and the group that replies either yea or nay the loudest is declared the winner. 
  
 But the technique can turn out to be confusing and even produce erroneous results, researchers at the UI and at the National Center for Voice and Speech argue in a paper published this month in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 
  
 "All voters should realize that a soft (voiced) vote is basically an abstaining vote and that one loud vote is equivalent to many votes with normal loudness," says Ingo Titze (pronounced TEET-Zah), professor in the UI's Department of Communications Sciences and Disorders in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and corresponding author on the paper. The researchers calculate it would take at least 40 normal loudness voices to overcome the bias of a single loud vote, in order to establish roughly a two-thirds majority. 
  
 Take the 2012 Democratic National Convention, for example. When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa asked the several-thousand-member crowd whether the party should reinsert the phrases "God-given talents" and "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the State of Israel" into the party's platform document, the voice vote was so divided that Villaraigosa had to repeat the questions three times before declaring—some say erroneously—that the resolution had passed by a two-thirds margin. 
  
 Titze was watching the convention that night. "I'm an acoustician, so the voice vote really perked up my ears," he recalls. "There were very emotional people in that audience. People were literally jumping up and shouting 'No! No!' It got me thinking: What good is a voice vote when there's a real issue at stake—real emotion involved?'" 
  
 To find out, Titze and Anil Palaparthi, a research engineer with the National Center for Voice and Speech (NCVS) in Utah, ran a series of experiments simulating various voice-vote scenarios. 
  
 The researchers assembled 54 student "voters" in a spacious classroom, with five "judges" positioned at the front, closing their eyes when judging loudness. The student voters were divided into two camps—ayes and nays —and then instructed to shift their numbers and the loudness of their voices, to simulate various voice-vote scenarios. The judges said which group they thought sounded louder after each scenario. 
  
 In one scenario, for example, ten voters progressively shifted their voices from one voting bloc to the other, until they had a two-thirds majority. The judges had to determine based on sound alone when that threshold had been reached. (Listen to the audio here: http://clas.uiowa.edu/files/clas/external-relations/E2.wav) 
  
 The researchers arrived at several conclusions. When more voices joined a group, the judges noticed an increase in loudness beginning with the second added voice. When voters progressively raised the volume of their voices, judges noticed the increase beginning with only one voter speaking more loudly than the others. This means, Titze explains, that "in a small group, a single voter can skew a two-thirds majority by simply speaking louder than the other voters. And unless individual loudness is controlled, any voice vote for a simple majority is highly suspect." 
  
 The researchers propose locating voters at equal distance from the vote tabulator or controlling for sound on voters' microphones. Another approach would be to ask everyone to keep their voices at a conversational level. 
  
 Still, "there's something to be said about hearing people's emotions when an issue comes before them," says Titze, who's also executive director at the NCVS. "Voice voting may not be useful to make a final decision, but at least it gives people the chance to express themselves verbally, and there's some value in that." 
  
 Explore further: Preferences shaped by evolution draw voters to candidates with lower-pitched voices ||||| (ISNS) -- At the Democratic National Convention in 2012, the leadership wanted two resolutions passed and the chairman asked the 22,000 delegates for voice votes on both. Passing the motions required a two-thirds majority. 
  
 He asked for a vote, then two re-votes and even then, the response was ambiguous. The reason, researchers at the University of Iowa in Iowa City found, is that except under unrealistic controlled circumstances, voice votes are useless. 
  
 Their research suggests that the "ayes" don't necessarily have it. 
  
 The chair told the delegates that the motion passed. But Ingo Titze, an authority on voice and speech, thought the result was unclear at best, and probably predetermined. He decided to run an experiment at one of his undergraduate classes in Iowa City. The results are published in the current issue of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 
  
 His conclusion was that unless the vote is overwhelming -- something like a two-thirds majority -- no one can really tell the difference between a winning motion and a losing one. He also found that it doesn't matter whether you call for the "yeas" and "nays" or the "yes" and "no." And, if you have a quiet voice, don't bother -- your vote won't be heard; the loudest voices will carry the day even if they are in the minority, he found. 
  
 Voice votes, which are sanctioned by a widely used guide to parliamentary procedure called Robert's Rules of Order, are a quick way to determine a majority, especially when an actual count would be difficult, certainly the case at the 2012 Democratic convention, held in a huge arena in Charlotte, North Carolina. 
  
 "In a house like that, I don't think there is an alternative," Titze said. "You can't use buttons or another electronic vote and you can't pass out pieces of paper to 5,000-10,000 people." 
  
 The issues at the convention were amendments to the party's platform. One would assert that Jerusalem was the recognized capital of Israel, the other was a reference to "God-given potential," both of which the party's leaders wanted but met resistance from the delegates. 
  
 The chair, Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, called for a voice vote, a vocal "aye" or "no." The motion required a two-thirds majority and by sound, the result seemed to be a tie. 
  
 "Let me do that again," he said. 
  
 The second time was the same. Villaraigosa looked totally confused. He called for a third vote, which again sounded uncertain. He simply declared the motions had carried, as was typed into his Teleprompter. This, Titze said, made it clear the results were phony. 
  
 This bothered Titze so he set up a series of experiments in a class of about 70 students. 
  
 The overwhelming majority of the students were women so to alleviate the gender imbalance, he had only the woman participate. Titze said he doubted the fact he used no men altered the results. Women actually are typically perceived as louder than men because their voices sound at a higher frequency, he said, "so they have an automatic guarantee of louder voices." 
  
 They were instructed in a series of tests to say "yes," "no," "nay," "aye," or "yea" at various levels. A team of five people sitting with their eyes closed so they could not get visual clues judged how the votes turned out. 
  
 Through the stages of the experiment, the group changed its loudness and the number of people speaking at different volumes. The students were told at which volume to speak: "as if across a table," "teaching a class of about 40 students," or "shouting to someone across the street." 
  
 Determining a simple majority was impossible. The percentage had to get up to 60-40 before the judges could accurately determine a winner. 
  
 "The vote is very, very biased toward loud voices," he said. "Soft voices are like no voices in a vote." 
  
 "Soft voices are abstentions," said Amee Shah, director of the Research Laboratory in 
  
 Speech Acoustics and Perception at Cleveland State University, who did not participate in the research. "Softer voices do not get through." 
  
 She said voice votes would work in a small group if the chair took into consideration who might have the loudest voice and moderated the results accordingly. Otherwise, even recognizing a two-thirds vote would be difficult. 
  
 Titze said the conditions necessary to rely on an accurate voice vote -- no one shouting, no outside noise, everyone speaking at the same volume -- are unlikely in the real world. 
  
 The nays apparently have it. 
  
 Joel Shurkin is a freelance writer based in Baltimore. He is the author of nine books on science and the history of science, and has taught science journalism at Stanford University, UC Santa Cruz and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He tweets at @shurkin. |||||
Output:
Let's say you've got 22,000 people in a room, and you need them to quickly decide on something. What do you do? Well, at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the chairman used a practice common at all levels of government: a voice vote. It's a simple process: Voters simply say "yea" or "nay," and a chairman judges by response. There's just one problem: Voice votes are great at determining who's the loudest, but lousy at determining majority opinion, a new study concludes. Researchers ran a series of test votes, and found that unless one side had at least a 60% majority, it was impossible to determine the winner. What's more "the vote is very, very biased toward loud voices," lead researcher Ingo Titze says. The findings suggest it takes at least 40 normal voices to balance out one loud one if trying to establish a two-thirds majority, according to Phys.org. That's what the DNC was trying to do, and the result was a disaster; after three utterly inconclusive votes, chair Antonio Villaraigosa simply said the measure passed. "In a house like that, I don't think there is an alternative," Titze tells Inside Science. "You can't pass out pieces of paper to 5,000 to 10,000 people."