OK - you know this stuff really is not that complex. I just didn't explain it well. Look you rank your choices, saying what is your favorite what is your second favorite and so on. If nothing wins a majority we figure out from the rankings who would have won a run-off, and if needed additional run-offs until some choice wins a majority. Simple and fair.

And we would not use except in cases which were both important and with more than two choices. In thread choices we would do something simple; if the "wrong" choice won, so what.

But if the "quorum" (after all that is the word on the ballot) wins, then we have to decide quorum size. In that case is the Australian ballot worse than a runoff? Remember, most of the issues we will have to settle are binary. Is this really that unreasonable in the cases that are not.

If you think about it, first past the post is complicated too. It is just a complexity we are familiar with.

Yeah, this is dumbfoundingly confusing. I actually invented the Bureaucracy thread (seriously -- look it up) and I can't deal with any of this. It's scary and too many percentages. Less math, better government!

But I'll drop it for now. Just so long as nothing is ruled out at this point. If we can agree that preference voting as means of determining the simple majority rule is not ruled out by voting for a simplemajority , I will be happy to shut up.

I haven't been following any of this successfully for ages! (Of course, I am Ms. Cold Medicine.)

Wrdoy dwory word.

I love this.

I also appreciate Maya's suggestion about minimum-yes-votes.

Or, if someone proposes a simple binary option, Simple Maj/Two-thirds deathmatch, and nobody objects, we can just make that choice and be done with it.

Okay I didn't understand most of this, but I'm all for the deathmatch choice.

The people that are most interested in talking about this on a theoretical and detailed level, I just want to alert you that you're inspiring a "this is too fucking complicated why bother" reaction rather than insight at this point.

I just want to reiterate this. the complexity will discourage people from voting. The simplicity will help us frame proposals that are simple. I follow every post here, so I am not so disconcerted by the heavily technical discussion going on right now, but if I jumped in and saw this, I would think we are crazy to do this.

I understand that Borda and Condorcet and Australian are "simple", but they don't seem it. They give me a headsche and they aren't transperent (and I took a whole course on hem at college1)

While our hearts are in the right place, I think the confusion of a) talking about voting as if it is a done deal and b) having really, really technical conversation is perhaps more detrimental to the proposition of voting and simplifying things.

The reasons I support voting are that it will be easier to have a time limited discussion and even if people are upset by an outcome, they can CLEARLY SEE that they were outnumbered. This is why I think we have to work very hard to keep every vote understandable and as free of bureacratize as possible AND to keep the results transparent to math-phobes.

Deathmatch good.

Gar, I don't think we have ruled out anything. Katie was just pointing out that people might feel the vote was confusing.

I do like the idea of the preference system in principle, but I'm not sure why it would be applicable here. I was under the impression that things would be proposed, then discussed, and then there'd be a proposition and we'd vote either yes or no (or abstain, if we decide to go that way.) Where, other than thread names, would we have multiple choices? (Well, and if we decide to do multiple choice for quorum size, but we don't even know yet if that passed, so there's really no point in deciding now how to have a vote that we don't know if we're going to have.)

I like the idea of cagematches, but groin strikes should be illegal.