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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. the level of voter turnout is counted from the number of people who voted yes or no
2. 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?

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.

Anathama - Quorum can be decided on a single ballot, or say two. Have a vote to decide whether it should be percentage or number (percentage not to exceed 50%+1). Optionally, if you vote for percentage, put in the percentage you favor. If you support a number, put in the number you favor (not less than 2).

OK so now we know percent or number, and we know the choice of percents if percent, and the choice of numbers if numbers.

So the second ballot lists all the possible numbers (if numbers are the choice, and I think they will be.) Or it lists all the suggested percents (if percents are the choice - though I think they won't be).

Regardless,they are put on a ballot in numerical order. Now here is the trick. People rank these choices.

Suppose the choices are

85,75,50,25,15,10,5,2

(That is this the complete list of numbers people submit for a quorum. OK, Say we rank on a scale of 1 to 8, 8 being best. (1 to 8 because there are 8 choices) OK, let us say you favor 25. (This is completely hypothetical. You will probably favor something different. And the choices will be different too.) So 25 would be your first choice (ranked 8). Maybe 15 would be your second choice (ranked 7). But this particular (hypotheical) you really hates the idea of anything less than 15, so 50, 75 and 85 are your next choices, and then 10, 5 and 2.

And others due the same type of ranking on completly different criteria. Remember, anyone can put a choice on - so we have any number anyone favors as a choice. Or we can do multiples of five between the imax and minimum suggest , plus the max and min if not a multiple of five, plus any other number anyone feels strongly about.

So in that case the choices would be

2,5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,75,80,85

So now you rank on a scale of 1 to 18, 18 being best.

That being done, we count the ballots. There are various algorithms for counting ranked votes.

The easiest one - since we are doing manual counts is what is know as a Borda count. You simply add the ranks for each choice to get a numerical score, and the highest score is the winner. That is if 10 people rank 50 as their highest choice 18 and 10 rank it their lowest (1) then score for "50" as a choice 180 (18 time 10) + 10 (10 times 1) = 190.

It is also good in that it mesure intensity of support and tends to produce good compromise results. The disadvantage, In very rare cases in can produce "splits" the way simple plurality can - leading to the one with the most support losing. However in a case like this with a lot of options, it is less likely.

Another method - perhaps the best mathematically is the instant Cordecet round robin. It is a more complex method than that used by the Austrialians. (However a more complex counting option. The balloting is the same in all methods.)

You simply take the ranked options, and conduct a serious of simple simulated elections between them. That is you run "50" against "2" , "50" against "5" , "50" against "10" and so forth until "50" has been run in a paired election against every number but itself. Then you do the same with "45" (omitting a runoff against "50" because that is already done), and so forth. After the computer has run an imaginary election between every choice and every other choice, then it looks to see which choice, won the most of these hypothetical pairwise elections. And that is the winner.

Ok I know this sounds complicated. But the tough part is done by a computer, and is easy to program. The only thing you as a voter have to do is rank your choices.

I was going to wait until we decided whether to use a minyan based system. But since it looks likely, I thought I'd lay out some fair ways we can decide on a number without endless votes.

X-post with Rob, sort of. I like preferential ballots. I think some better ways of counting them have been developed since the Austrialian method was adapted. In a case like this board, it is not a major issue - the Australian method is certainly good enough. But since it has to be programmed anyway (counting preferential votes in a non-automated way is horribly tedious) we might at least consider other methods. Actually, I suspect only a small minority on this list are intereseted in technical details. If quorum is adapted, I suggest that those of us who are interested get together by email , forming an informal subcommitte.

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 think this paragraph will help me to clarify my position. If 90% of the Buffistas don't care, then 12 people should be able to institute minor changes, not massive changes. If it's a massive change, more than 90% of the Buffistas will definitely care. And I like the idea of having a voter range for quorum, though I haven't really thought through whether your way or Jon's way or a different way would be the best way to do this.

Edited to add, I think Gar's way may be the best way simply because he blinded me with mathematics.

I think this paragraph will help me to clarify my position. If 90% of the Buffistas don't care, then 12 people should be able to institute minor changes, not massive changes. If it's a massive change, more than 90% of the Buffistas will definitely care.

Wrdoy dwory word.