Okay - keeping in mind that I tend to not be in here unless I'm personally involved (this time, an obvious yes), and don't have a lot of the history.

I don't want to kerfuffle anything here, so let's have a code phrase: if this method is kerfuffle-making, Debet, for heavens sake, say "DEB! BAD! NO!" and let's move on.

Since we only have two cities in the running, shouldn't it be simpler than this? Preferred, second choice, will attend either?

I have this uneasy feeling in the pit of my tum about suggesting that, but it honestly seems simplest, with only two choices on the table.

It totally should, and I'm sorry if I'm coming across as argumentative. I'm just leery of a situation like last year, where I get the feeling a lot of people voted for where they most wanted to go, and no so much for where they were most likely to go, if you get my meaning. Admittedly, these two cities are much less likely to have that sort of issue.

Yeah, last year was quite a different situation. The one and only vote was between three or four (I'm thinking four) cities. This year should be much simpler.

There were four cities in the final vote, but there was a fair amount of narrowing of cities before that.

The problem, Deb, is that it doesn't take into account people who will attend either, but have a clear preference. I'm trying to come up with a ballot that accounts for both willingness/ability to attend and enthusiasm for the location, which, I think, is similar to what you're saying, Brenda.

We could have voting via short essay.

t /smartass

Oh who the hell am I kidding, that never closes.

I don't think Mr. Poll offers that option.

There were four cities in the final vote, but there was a fair amount of narrowing of cities before that.

Ok. I'm just sayin' that if we had four cities this time, I'd be all for extreme voting - Check here / initial here / promise you'll come / cancellations require a note from a doctor, etc. EXTREME voting!

But with two cities, we aren't branching out in so many directions. We have two choices. I (personally) think we could even just vote YES or NO on this one. (Voting NO doesn't mean someone can't attend if the other city wins. It's just stating a preference.)

Edit - But I'm also fine with the four ways of saying YES or NO option. Just so we're clear.

There were four cities in the final vote, but there was a fair amount of narrowing of cities before that.

There were two rounds of voting. The first narrowed the choices from 6 to 4, and the second round produced one winner.

I really strongly oppose a straight "which one" vote. More people may prefer one, but be able to attend the other, while people who prefer the other can't attend the winner.