Cindy I was not accusing you of conning. I was making a strong argument against a particular interpetation. And unfortunately it is now relevent because an argument is being made that voting for a simple majority rules out certain possiblilties that I don[t think it does. I think any counting system in which any option that wins 50%+1 wins the vote (providing any quorum requirements are met) , is allowed under simple majority. Simple does not mean (uncomplicated, but 50%+1. I'll shut up now, but I honestly don't think anything I said was actually sickening. And please, i was not accusing you of conning us - I was pointing out the problems with a particular interpetation - it was a reduction absurdum. If you interpet it this way, Cindy conned us. Cindy conning us is aburd. Therefor that interpetation is not correct.

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 if it's good or bad to re-state some fundamentals here but just for the record -- yes, Cindy "simple majority" does mean "the side with the most votes wins" but we're also discussing another issue about whether three votes in total is enough.

If 100 people vote, then a simple majority is 51 votes or more. More than half.

But what we're also going to have to sort out is, what if 100 people don't vote?

Is a vote in which ten people take part valid?

So the majority issue is, would fifty-one out of 100 be enough, or would we require 66 or 75 out of a hundred?

The voter turnout issue is, how many votes in total do we need?

Here I go interpreting things again, but--

What Cindy was saying and I agree with is that we don't need and probably shouldn't talk about HOW to vote right now until the votes for this are counted and we know we are going to vote. We're getting ahead of ourselves.

This is probably why we need a separate discussion thread.

Hey Maya, welcome and that's very interesting. Why go back to lurking now?

Unless someone argues that a voting for simple majority rules out preference voting. Because that would make a big difference in how some of us vote.

Unless someone argues that a voting for simple majority rules out preference voting. Because that would make a big difference in how some of us vote.

Yes. I agree. Except the complicated voting procedures are making my head hurt!

On the other hand, you can require a minimum number of "yes" votes -- say 10 for the sake of this examples -- for any change, in addition to requiring a majority (or super-majority, such as 60%).

Good thinking Maya. And welcome to the conversation.

You know, I had foolishly thought that this voting idea was going to make things less complex. Now I'm thinking that, even if it passes, I'm never gonna vote because I don't understand half of these counting/voting/whatever methods.

I hear you, Kristen. I think we should choose whatever has the least math. No, strike that. No math. Arithmetic only, and not even too much of that.

Well we don't have to use them. We can stick to simple voting methods. It just means that if there are multiple options, we have to hold multiple votes.