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?

I'm willing to wait - provided that others are willing to wait in ruling stuff out.

Because I'm sorry - there is nothing in the proposal that rules out Borda counts.

Let me quote the exact wording:

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.

Regardless, this item does not affect the outcome of Item 2. In other words, if people vote in favor of requiring a quorum on any issue, the quorum requirement will still stand and the smallest majority that would allow an initiative to be voted in would equal [one half + one] of the votes needed for the quorum.

A no vote on this item signifies the voter does not think a simple majority is sufficient to enact change for any initiative brought up for vote, and instead wants a higher majority.

Note the part I've bolded. I'll defer further discussion. I'll just point out that Anthama was pointing out a real problem and suggesting multiple votes to solve it. I (and Rob actually beat me to it) was suggesting a solution that may be harder to understand but is easier to implement. I hope no one will insist on digging holes with teaspoons rather than shovels, because a teaspoon is easier to understand and less "bureaucratic". And I hope it is absolutely understood that voting for a simple "majority" does not rule out counting methods such as the Australian system or Borda counts. (Nor does it allow them to be implemented withut a vote.) Because if it does, I will feel that Cindy conned us and bullied us into rushing through into something without understanding what we were supporting. And I'm sure that was not her intent.

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.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that it would've taken every Nader voter ranking Gore above Bush to change the result? Or that it makes a difference whether the two-thirds (say) who prefer Gore over Bush put Gore above mcReynolds too? If the latter, I don't think that's true. Assuming Nader and McReynolds had less primary votes combined than either Bush or Gore, each vote for one of them will wind up going to whichever candidate out of Bush and Gore the voter ranked higher. That is to say, "1. Nader, 2. Gore, 3. Bush, 4. McReynolds" will wind up against the same candidate (Gore) as if the ranking was "1. Nader, 2. McReynolds, 3. Gore, 4. Bush".

Note from the AEC website:

"8.4 Members of the House of Representatives are elected on the basis of an absolute majority system. The first preference votes recorded for each candidate are counted. If any candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the first preference votes, that candidate is immediately elected. Whether or not a candidate is elected on first preference votes, the counting continues. Candidates with the fewest votes are excluded in turn and second and later preferences on their ballot papers are distributed. A candidate who receives an absolute majority of votes during the exclusion process is elected. The process of excluding candidates and distributing preferences continues until only two candidates remain in the count. (See paras 9.27-9.28 and Appendix G for a description of the House of Representatives scrutiny.)" [Emphases mine; for Bush to beat Gore in any electorate, an absolute majority of voters would've had to signal they preferred Bush to Gore specifically.]

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.

This is still true, where the second and third candidates are more evenly matched. Where Doug's preferences decide whether Bill or Carol will be next eliminated, and most of Carol's primary votes would go to Bill but most of Bill's primary votes would go to Amanda, then it may theoretically be that making Bill your second choice after Doug makes it more likely Amanda will be defeated, even if you prefer Carol to Bill. (Was that confusing enough?)

It doesn't come up often, of course. Australia is also effectively a two-party nation, and it's rare that a third candidate has much of a look-in; but it can happen. Strategic preference issues became more closely scrutinised after the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, but this was more closely tied to the party recommendations. (The argument was over whether One Nation should be ranked last, or second last with the other main party in last place.)

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.

Heh. That makes me even happier I voted against a simple majority. I confess I didn't think about it too carefully beyond the two-candidate situation, but yeah, if you have several possible options, a simple majority as per the American model would let an option win even if only a quarter of voters preferred it to a specific one of the other options. (That's basically how the Republican referendum in Australia was defeated.)

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

Yeah, pro small thingamahoozies, so 8 yays and 3 nays would work nicely. Would we have to post in Swahilian?

Cereal:

And FTR I'm getting Borda dis.

Even though I keep talking-- I agree with Cindy and think we should wait until we see if we are even going to vote!

The only conning I did is if "simple majority" means something completely different than "the side with the most votes wins, even if it's 2 votes to 1."

I don't know what a Borda method is, and didn't even read the link, because all of this is making me kind of sick.