I think I understand what you're getting at, although you loose me a little there in the middle.
hell, I lose me :)
Perhaps an example.
Let's say that 10 people pick SF as "want to attend", 8 people pick Seattle as "want to attend". At first glance, SF wins.
9 people say that they "can't attend" SF and 5 people say that they "can't attend Seattle". But, 4 of the SF people also said "prefer SF, but would go to Seattle".
Because more people can't attend SF, we throw the "would go to Settle votes" to "yes", and makes a total of 12 people for Seattle, 6 for SF, but only 5 who can't go to Seattle, as opposed to 9 who cant' attend SF.
Is that better.
Stop! You're making my head hurt, girl.
My vote will be easy. I adore both cities and have no preference for one over the other. Whether I actually can ATTEND will be determined much closer to the actual dates.
I'm inclined to want something like:
0 = can't attend
1 = would attend (no preference)
2 = would LOVE to attend (strong preference)
City with the most points wins. It's simple, and takes both preference and ability into account.
There are two important totals: Who
wants
a given city, and who can go to a given city. The latter should be the priority -- correct? But the former will be considered.
oh, that's good too. Of course, it's less complicated, and I'm not sure if that's a violation of Buffista principles, but okay.
Well, if it would help I could also add the option to choose:
Q = likes puppies
@ = hates cilantro
It's simple, and takes both preference and ability into account.
But .. two people loving to attend and two not being able to is equivalent to four being able to attend, and trumps three being able to attend and one not. Is that an intended effect?
How is that different than saying that first deciding factor is which city more people can't attend?
