The final numbers from this first vote will be needed to really know for certain, but I think 10 is a ridiculously low number. If all we needed to make major changes to the board is 10 votes, then how is that really any different than 10 people getting together in Kafka and yakking for a day and making the change?

And if the argument is, "Well, I think if people really care, than a lot more than 10 are going to be voting," then I think that argument is self defeating.

Why? Because if you think a lot more than 10 are always going to be voting, than setting the minimum vote to 10 is pointless. The point of a minimum vote is not to have an arbitrary number that can always and easily be reached, but to set a number which the group as a whole feels iappropriate support for allowing any change to be made.

I'm not going to propose a number. One, because I have no idea how many people are going to end up voting and don't think I should hazard a guess as to how many it will be, and, two, because I think that no one should just propose a number and we vote on it.

I think what we should do is this: if the "quorum" measure passes, we then hold a vote on the number we think the quorum should be, with it worded as follows:

Choose one of the following for the minimum vote number needed to pass a measure:

a - 10 or more

b - 20 or more

c - 30 or more

d - 40 or more

And you keep adding an E, an F, and a G, etc., until you get up to half + 1 of the total number of voters that turn out for this first vote we are now taking. Then I propose a runoff between the two choices that receive the most votes.

I am sure that sounds like a giant pain in the ass, but I can't see how we are going to decide on a fair number without at least taking two voting passes at picking it. And the reason for that is that if we have three days of discussion on the issue, I imagine we are going to end up with as many suggestions for what the number should be as there are numbers between 1 and 100. And by just taking one vote on every multiple of 10 up to our half+1 number, then a second vote for a runoff, we will avoid a lot of meaningless discussion and carpal tunel syndrome.

Again, my two pennies.

Why? Because if you think a lot more than 10 are always going to be voting, than setting the minimum vote to 10 is pointless. The point of a minimum vote is not to have an arbitrary number that can always and easily be reached, but to set a number which the group as a whole feels iappropriate support for allowing any change to be made.

Yerp.

Under the Clem is Hott example, if 15 Buffistas really want the thread, and 4 Buffistas are anti-thread proliferation on general principle and completely don't get the smoldering Clem goodness, and the other million buffistas couldn't care less, under a high quorum like 50, no Clem. I would be interested to know how some of the other threads on this board would have fared under a high quorum regime. IJS.

I would be interested to know how some of the other threads on this board would have fared under a high quorum regime. IJS.

I don't think it's a reach to say that some threads would not have been created. And folks should keep that in mind when they vote, regardless of whether they think that's a good thing or bad.

Just to make it clear, I am not suggesting 50 or 5 be the minimum vote number. I am not suggesting any number in particular. I am merely saying that if people really want to set up a democratic system, then we should put everything from 10 to 50%+1 on the ballot for that minimum vote we are talking about having. And then there should be a runoff until one of the numbers gets a majority of votes.

I understand what you mean, Wolf. If 90% of the Buffistas don't care, then why shouldn't 12 people be allowed to institute massive changes? And if a majority of people agree with you, then 10 will end up the minimum number. Not trying to argue against your ten so much as I am trying to argue for taking our time with making that decision.

I just would hate to see a vote where we say you can vote for 10, or you can vote for 50, but you can't vote for anything in between.

If people are serious about making a fair and balanced system, then setting a minimum number of votes needed to make changes to the system (whatever the number ends up being) is, I think, the most important decision to be made. And going to whatever number of successive runoffs is needed in order to make sure that whatever number picked receives at least 51% the vote is, I think, the best way to make sure that no one is disenfranchised.

then we should put everything from 10 to 50%+1 on the ballot for that minimum vote we are talking about having. And then there should be a runoff until one of the numbers gets a majority of votes.

I agree with this. It's elegent and fair. Although a runoff isn't necessary -- we could go with a preferential ballot.

Jon, I just was worried that we could end up with something like 20 votes for each choice, and then 21 votes for the winning choice. If there were, say, 5 choices, then 80 people would feel screwed, while only 21 would be happy. And that's not real good democracy.

So I do think that somehow we need to set it up so that the winnner of this issue gets 51% of the vote.

And I don't think it is probably necessary to take a week for each vote. It's a multiple choice vote, and there need not be a lot of discussion since every option is would go on the ballot. So a couple of days should be sufficient to give everyone time to vote. Then a couple of days for the runoff.

Is there no way to look at the tables and say "There are two hundred people who have posted more than 15 times in a month"? [...] Because John's Perl script on WX seemed to track that activity pretty well.

Just for the record, what that script did was record posts in a particular thread.

I don't know how hard it would be for ita to do some kind of count of posts overall, but I suspect not terribly. "There were 5,000 posts in the last week, contributed by 250 people" or something.

But then there are lurkers.

Just because you're not posting, doesn't mean you don't get a vote -- can someone imagine a member who only ever posted to vote? It's possible; they'd be voting on what they want to read, wouldn't they.

And minion, minyan, funyun, it's all very cute, but really -- what we're talking about is voter turnout. I propose we just use that from now on.

The Q-word means "people physically present" and has no meaning. None of us is physically present.

So we're requiring people to be intellectually present -- to come along and take an interest, read the debate.

If, having done that, they think "I don't care either way" they should please not just go away, they should register the fact that they attended to the discussion with some kind of a neutral vote.

We've been calling that an "abstention" but it doesn't have to be. In Australia it's called an "informal" vote.

People have been posting that we are obliged by law to vote in Australia. Not so. We're obliged to turn up at the polling place and stuff a ballot into a box. Nothing says we have to vote for any candidate.

So in order to reach a satisfactory level of voter turnout we may have to ask Buffistas who don't care, but did read the vote thread, to indicate that they did so.

Okay, my perspective from just counting the ballots. Absentions should be considered absences. You vanish for the sake of that vote. It's patently ridiculous to ask people to register their lack of interest.