This is how the People's Republic of Cambridge, MA (and other places, I'm sure) conducts much of its voting. There are variations of this system but I don't know their details.
And if our current vote turns up a win for straight majority?
...burning baby fish swimming all round your head.
Drusilla ,'Conversations with Dead People'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
Katie M - Feb 27, 2003 1:58:17 pm PST #5817 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
Jon B. - Feb 27, 2003 1:59:51 pm PST #5818 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
because we had more than one item to vote on at once, and perhaps the form couldn't process a "blank" answer?
Honestly, it was an arbitrary decision on my part. I figured better to include it than not. With "radio buttons" on html forms, once you select a choice, you can't change it to no choice; you can only pick a different one (unless you reload the page). I could see people complaning if I didn't include abstain, but I couldn't imagine anyone complaining if I did include it.
Cindy - Feb 27, 2003 2:00:58 pm PST #5819 of 10001
Nobody
The 50% would have to be of active users though, not registered users. There are about 800 people registered here. My guess is there are about 100-150 regular posters. I can't even think of that many off the top of my head.
I even think requiring 50% of active users voting is too high, not to mention, it probably endangers some existing threads. I understand the anti-proliferation feeling and share it in the abstract, but when I see the redundancies, I feel a little differently about what actual proliferation is and how it's viewed by some of the stronger anti-proliferation voices.
Jon B. - Feb 27, 2003 2:01:09 pm PST #5820 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
And if our current vote turns up a win for straight majority?
The end result of preferential balloting, once you've gone through the iterations, is a straight majority.
Katie M - Feb 27, 2003 2:02:27 pm PST #5821 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
The end result of preferential balloting, once you've gone through the iterations, is a straight majority.
Well, yeah, okay, but that's certainly not what I thought I was voting on - I thought I was voting on simplistic American-style "biggest number wins." (Which is not to say that I've got any issue with preferential balloting, because I don't. I rather like it, actually.)
billytea - Feb 27, 2003 2:03:37 pm PST #5822 of 10001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
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.
Specifically, I've been saying that Australians are obliged by law to vote. And I did clarify that this does not oblige you to select a candidate.
This is how the People's Republic of Cambridge, MA (and other places, I'm sure) conducts much of its voting.
This is how the Australian system works too.
Jon B. - Feb 27, 2003 2:05:31 pm PST #5823 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
but that's certainly not what I thought I was voting on
Oh, no, we're all thinking ahead here. Anathema was suggesting that if, for example, the quorum questions wins, then we'll need a couple of additional votes to figure out how high the quorum should be. I was suggesting a single preferential ballot for such issues, rather than a second runoff vote.
Cindy - Feb 27, 2003 2:05:40 pm PST #5824 of 10001
Nobody
Well, yeah, okay, but that's certainly not what I thought I was voting on - I thought I was voting on simplistic American-style "biggest number wins." (Which is not to say that I've got any issue with preferential balloting, because I don't. I rather like it, actually.)
You were, because you were voting on a motion written by a person who couldn't even read the explanation of the preferential balloting, as it made her think of math. ijs.
John H - Feb 27, 2003 2:07:00 pm PST #5825 of 10001
It's patently ridiculous to ask people to register their lack of interest.
Well, obviously not to me, only, it's not "lack of interest". The people in my example are interested. They just don't have an opinion either way.
Am I harping on this one point too much? Maybe I'm liking the irony of the situation too much.
There are really only two choices, however, if we decide that we need a minimum level of voter turnout for a vote to be valid.
- the level of voter turnout is counted from the number of people who voted yes or no
- the level of voter turnout is counted from the number of people who voted, including abstentions/"informal" votes
What is it about counting the votes that gave you a particular perspective, Jen?
John H - Feb 27, 2003 2:09:05 pm PST #5826 of 10001
I've been saying that Australians are obliged by law to vote. And I did clarify that this does not oblige you to select a candidate.
I really wasn't having a go at you, billytea. I was thinking more of UnAustralians who were freaking out over the idea. Sorry if it seemed aimed at you.