It's patently ridiculous to ask people to register their lack of interest.

No ... oh, John got there before me. If there's a minimum whatever in place, I'll vote abstain on measures I feel neither negative nor positive towards.

I think if 8 Buffistas want to have the site in Swahili, and 3 don't, then the board should be in Swahili. Obviously, 789 Buffistas don't care, so why not?

Really, I just came up with my ballot suggestion off the cuff. I merely wanted to make sure people were thinking about taking our time and offerring as many choices as possible for determining this minimum number that is being bandied about. And it seems people, or the few people who have posted this afternoon, do see that.

Cindy, none of the proposals is suggesting 51% of all registered users. I think most of us are thinking along the line of 51% of the active voting members (using this current vote-in-progress to determine how many voting members there are). So however many vote on this measure that's going on right now (150, 250, whatever), that's the number of voting members.

And I hate to say it, but no matter whether we use a numbre or a percentage, we will have to probably reevaluate that figure every year in order to be fair. The number of users here probably goes up and down regularly.

Time consuming and tricky stuff this democracy. That's why I still favor the blah-blah-Buffista method you have been using since the time immemorial.

Dammit, I thought I was avoiding mathematics. t grin

Robs proposal and both my proposals are the same from the voter standpoint. You rank candidates.

The Borda method is simple enough that it could be implemented in a spreadsheet, without programming. It has advantages and disadvantages in terms of fairness over other methods. It tends to strongly approximate consensus to result in a compromise choice. But if there are two extremely popular choices and a bunch of unpopular ones, the popular choices can split the vote and result in choice being picked less popular than either.

The Condercet method is by some arguments the fairest. But it is the most complex to implement - it must be programmed on a computer. There is too much drudgework for somene to simply receive e-mail and count it.

The Austrialian method is in between. It is extremely tedious to do manually, but it is possible. (I would say that in fairness to whoever has to count the ballots, we should automated the counting even if the Austrialian method is chosen.) Unlike Borda count, it (for practical purposes) eliminates any chance of the least popular option being chosen due to vote splitting. But unlike the Condercet method, it can still allow for a type of vote splitting on second choices. That is while the actual last choice is unlikely to be picked, it can result in a similar type of voting splitting between second and third choices. To take an American example - if we had the Austrialian system in place we would have ended with Gore not Bush as president - provide Nader voter made Gore their second choice. But if 2/3rds of the Nader votes had made McRenolds their second choice, and Gore their third, and one third had made Bush their second choice, then Bush would have still gotten in under the Australian system.

Or to put it another way, under the Austrialian system, you can vote for what you really want as your first choice. But you had better still think strategically, about what can win, rather than just what you want, when you make your second choice.

I think what Katie was saying is that the proposal we are voting for now only allows for simple majority votes. So if we then use the Borda method, we aren't doing what we said we would.

OK - both Austrialian (usually called Instant Runoff in the U.S.) balloting, and Cordecet are simple majority. They just do multiple counts to get a simple majority. And I think Borda is included in what is mean't by simple majority. Because I mean if 51 or more vote for something under Borda (or any of the systems) as their first choice that wins. All of these are counting methods to resolve choices between multiple options, which *simple* as opposed to complex majority requires. None of them require super-majorities - that is more than 50%+1 to pass somethings. Note that even the simplist system, plurarlity where the one with most votes wins is not a *simple* majority since if there are more than two options stuff can be passed under plurality by less than a 50% vote.

So that would mean that we were rushed into voting without thinking through what we are voting on. But I don't think that is th e case. I don't think anyone meant it to be interperted that narrowly and legalistically. Stuff like whether to use choice voting for mulitiple mutually exclusive choices is not on the ballot - and thus is not resolved by the question of whether the decision is simple majority or not. If we pick simple majority, that ruiles out super-majority and consenus, It does not rule out other counting methods, provided of course a simple majority support those counting methods.

I think what Katie was saying is that the proposal we are voting for now only allows for simple majority votes. So if we then use the Borda method, we aren't doing what we said we would.

Right. Look, though, I don't actually care what the counting method is. I'm just pointing out an assumption that I made and thus I think other people might have made. I mean

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that a simple majority vote is sufficient to enact changes for any issue brought up for vote.

If this item passes, we will hold a discussion and vote on how to handle ties. If it doesn't pass, the point is moot.

implies to me that the only thing we need to clarify afterwards is what to do with a tie. Something with four options that ends up with a vote 10/8/6/4 doesn't have a tie. As I read this proposal, the option that got 10 votes wins.

Some people don't want to get even as formal as a vote. Of those who do want a vote to get a firm grasp on "consensus", many do not want our decision making process to get as formal as a Supreme Court thread. Of those wo do want our decision making process to get as formal as a Supreme Court thread, instituting minimums under any name is still way too formal. Then bring out preferential ballots, and other mathy things *shakes fist at Gar* is likely to turn off even more folks.

I'd like to very gently (please ignore me if you'd like) suggest that we take a breath and let this vote come out before we get so far into detailed plans that may never come to pass. I'd also like to suggest (still gently) that after the vote results are final, we take a look at the list that Sophia created during the retreat at WXing. We have about 5 people now, getting deeper and deeper into true bureaucracy for a community that up until a week ago, wasn't doing all that much bitching about a very informal process. One of the things many Buffistas like is the fact that this board isn't so very formal.

No ... oh, John got there before me. If there's a minimum whatever in place, I'll vote abstain on measures I feel neither negative nor positive towards.

I think if 8 Buffistas want to have the site in Swahili, and 3 don't, then the board should be in Swahili. Obviously, 789 Buffistas don't care, so why not?

also? ita is me. It's the best my abs have looked in...ever.

I think if 8 Buffistas want to have the site in Swahili, and 3 don't, then the board should be in Swahili. Obviously, 789 Buffistas don't care, so why not?

Well if 789 Buffistas don't care than yeah, Swahili ho. Not that it really matter where the board is based.

Something with four options that ends up with a vote 10/8/6/4 doesn't have a tie. As I read this proposal, the option that got 10 votes wins.

Isn't 10 votes a plurality in that case? And I agree with Cindy, the rush to bureacratize this place is a little breath taking. Can we wait until the vote is over and counted?

Well if 789 Buffistas don't care than yeah, Swahili ho. Not that it really matter where the board is based.

Wait ... I thought you were pro-whateverwordwe'reusingforwhatever?