A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I agree with Jon about the education. Those of us who were around for all the hashing out of voting probably remember what "no preference" means-- that is, counting toward the minimum voter turnout but not the yes or no-- but others probably don't. Also, I proposed the vote on voting and I don't even remember the rules!
Definitely an education issue for me, and I only have myself to blame. I never really logicked out what No Preference potentially could mean in terms real numbers. Because to me, the potential for this kind of outcome:
e.g., a vote of Yes-6, No-5, NP-31 would pass
absolutely means I will change my voting habits.
ETA: And how I'd frame a ballot, should I ever do that.
Me, too, JenP. I thought No Preference actually counted, somehow. (I didn't think about it much, I admit.)
Sophia, you mean something like the "voting" part in the Law Speak page?
Nilly- like the voting part, but simpler, I think. Something like:
- You may vote yes, no, or no preferance on this ballot.
- Votes are carried by a simple majority of yes or no votes.
- There must be 42 buffistas voting in order for the vote to carry.
- The no preference option is for people who want to count towards the 42, but want whatever the majority of buffistas want to carry the day.
- Once this subject is voted on, discussion on this matter is closed for 6 months.
Only perhaps written better.
I love the Lawspeak document but have wanted to do simplified rules for some time now, however, I can't get off my ass to do it....
What would happen in the case of something like the two-part ballot that Kat linked to if Question One had a result that required an answer from Question Two but question Two didn't have MVT results? If, hypothetically, enough of the No Preference voters had just skipped that question?
The other thing is, are their more buffistas voting now, and should we consider upping the minimum from 42? We had about 100 active buffistas at the time IIRC.
What would happen in the case of something like the two-part ballot that Kat linked to if Question One had a result that required an answer from Question Two but question Two didn't have MVT results? If, hypothetically, enough of the No Preference voters had just skipped that question?
Anarchy!
Seriously, I think that is very unlikely to occur.
How did the number 42 get chosen (other than the obvious...) Was there some sort of mathiness involved WRT havign 100 or so active posters? Are there more active posters now?
Nilly, et als, I have a dumb question-- how does one navigate to the lawspeak document? I can never find it easily?
JenP-- from the lawspeak document, it looks like we had everyone write down the number they thought and averaged them,
[We have] a minimum number of community members voting on any item in order for the vote to count. (Press #367) How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? 42. This was taken as an average of voted suggestions. Mean, median and "binary walk" methods of averaging were compared, and all tended to come close enough to 42 for horseshoes and hand grenades. Votes of "no preference" count toward this [Minimum Voter Turnout]. (Press #415)
That was a hilarious happening -- I'm pretty sure everyone got to submit their own idea of how many voters was "enough," and then we averaged.
