Okay, how about TWO deathmatches.

Two-item ballots:

1.) Simple majority
2.) Two-thirds majority

Three-plus item ballots:

1.) Plurality
2.) 50%+1

Can you think of an example where it wouldn't be possible? I can't think of anything we've decided recently that was more than a "should we do this?" question.

Voter turnout was one such item mentioned: if we come to set an actual number, we may want more options than just 0 or 50 (for instance).

I recall a few discussions around here where more than two options have been proposed. This is one of them, for instance. But yes, to bleed some of the importance out of it, I would expect that most of the votes we take will be simple yes/no questions, and for those all the voting systems really boil down to the same thing.

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.

wants to kiss Sophia and buy her chocolate

Some people wanted 1 week, some the weekend, some 2 weeks, some "until the next show".

I think that 1 week, the weekend, and "until the next show" were pretty much equivalent. People clarified "until the next show" to mean "until when the next show ought to be," which is equivalent to one week. The way I'd see it working would be, someone could propose that it get changed to one week. It gets discussed, a lot of people think that's too short a time, and gets voted down. Then, someone could propose two weeks, and we could discuss the pros and cons of that without having to deal with trying to figure out the time frame at the same time as trying to figure out whether we want it changed at all.

edit:

Voter turnout was one such item mentioned: if we come to set an actual number, we may want more options than just 0 or 50 (for instance).

I mentioned that in my original post as something that could be decided later if we end up needing to decide it. I don't really see why we need to decide on how we'll choose a number if we don't know yet that we're going to need to choose a number anyway.

Also, for the imaginary future ballot we figure this out on... Quorum, defined as the number of vote (not voters) necessary to make a ballot valid, is:

1.) 10
2.) 25
3.) 50
4.) 100
5.) Abstain
6.) Write-in #: X

edit: sorry! was doing some self-editing, to keep things simple! 7) 8) were 5) 6)

And options 5) and 6) are butterflied off.

Dammit, the edit ate my punchline.

Example where we would want more that two or even three choices:

If we wanted quora, the number that constitutes a quorum. (and for that matter whether we use a number or percentage, and whether we revise the number periodically.)

If we want seconds, a similar question arises.

If we reject majority voting, the size of the super-majority.

The meta-question of how we handle questions which are not subject to a binary yes/no answer. Because there are at lease three possible answers.

A) Plurality

B) run-off

C) preference voting.

So that in itself is a non-binary question.

In short it is extremely likely that during this process we will end up confronting at least one question we can't answer with a single yes or no.

And Jengods example above is a perfect case for preference voting.

You know the thing, with the making people dizzy? I think you're still doing it, FWIW.

I understand the exercise, and the motivation, but if I were coming in to vote now, I'd be more tempted to vote against further voting than I would have been yesterday.

I was under the impression that thread names were seperate from this process.