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!
You can't open the book of my life and jump in the middle. Like woman, I'm a mystery.
Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
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
Sophia Brooks - Feb 27, 2003 3:34:40 pm PST #5854 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Wolfram - Feb 27, 2003 3:36:26 pm PST #5855 of 10001
Visilurking
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.
Kristen - Feb 27, 2003 3:38:35 pm PST #5856 of 10001
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.
§ ita § - Feb 27, 2003 3:39:25 pm PST #5857 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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.
Typo Boy - Feb 27, 2003 3:40:24 pm PST #5858 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
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.
John H - Feb 27, 2003 3:40:25 pm PST #5859 of 10001
Aren't the more complex, preference-using voting systems more appropriate to a system with multiple candidates?
I thought things we were voting on would be more binary. Either we have such-and-such a thread or we don't.
It would be a nightmare if, for instance, we had thirteen possible names for the thread and someone had to make preferences trickle down until a result was obtained.
Signed, I Had To Fill Out A Ballot The Size Of A Fucking Bathtowel Last Federal Election.
Kristen - Feb 27, 2003 3:40:50 pm PST #5860 of 10001
Arithmetic only
Yes, exactly. How many in favor? How many opposed? Done.
Monique - Feb 27, 2003 3:42:02 pm PST #5861 of 10001
I'm (perhaps not surprisingly) of the same mind as Kristen. In fact, I stopped reading this thread because the talk about voting about whether or not to vote has me thoroughly confused. If the idea of voting about voting confuses me, I can't imagine voting about other things.
Typo Boy - Feb 27, 2003 3:42:52 pm PST #5862 of 10001
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
But , for example, if we decide to go with quorums minimum voter turnout, then there is more than one possible size for a turnout requirement. So how do we decide on minimum turnout size, or minimu yes vote size (as Maya suggested) without preference balloting? And since we would still only decide one issue at a time, you won't have that many votes.
Kristen - Feb 27, 2003 3:43:13 pm PST #5863 of 10001
the idea of voting about voting confuses me
For the first time, I feel sorry for Florida.