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.

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.

Arithmetic only

Yes, exactly. How many in favor? How many opposed? Done.

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.

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.

the idea of voting about voting confuses me

For the first time, I feel sorry for Florida.

And by the way preference voting requires no math. Arithmetic only, and simple arithmetic at that. It just has to do it lots of times.

It just has to do it lots of times.

Aha! See! Not simple anymore.