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
Nice summary, Sophia. There was also the issue of whether abstentions count towards #3.
And to avoid a runoff ballot, I would like to suggest again that we use a preferential ballot to determine the number of Buffistas needed to make a vote count (a.k.a. "the quorum"). Yes, it's mathy. But it's also the system used by the government of Australia as well as Cambridge, MA. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. It will save us time. And if the vote counters are intimidated by it, I volunteer to add the votes and post detailed results.
Jon, could you point me to some good explanations of the differences in vote counting systems? I can deal with the basic yes/no and I know about proportional representation, but I'm not sure exactly what's different about a preferential ballot. (You may have explained this before. I have skimmed. If that's the case, I'm sorry to bother you but a post number would be really helpful.)
I think preferential is when you rank the choices from most preferred to least preferred, rather than a straight yes/no. The winner is then sort of the one the most people rank the most highly.
I think it's too complicated for our purposes -- I normally know what I like and what I don't like, but I don't really differentiate between my 3rd and 4th favorites out of a field of 5. But I can see the argument that it makes the outcome more accurately reflect the vox populi.
Jon, could you point me to some good explanations of the differences in vote counting systems? I can deal with the basic yes/no and I know about proportional representation, but I'm not sure exactly what's different about a preferential ballot. (You may have explained this before. I have skimmed. If that's the case, I'm sorry to bother you but a post number would be really helpful.)
I think the following is a fair representation of the Australian preferential system at least:
1. Each voter ranks all the candidates in order of preference.
2. The system works out the two most popular candidates, and then finds which one of them most voters prefer. That candidate wins.
Some more detail on how it works out the two most popular candidates:
Imagine the election like a whole series of runoffs. Each round, the candidate with the lowest number of votes gets eliminated and everyone who voted for him votes for one of the remaining candidates. Eventually you're left with only two candidates, and one of them will beat the other with over 50% of the vote. Only, because all the voters provided a full ranking at the start, the counters can work through all the runoffs automatically without anyone having to vote more than once.
two most poopular candidates:
I am sorry, I know I am 12, but:
BWAH-HA-HA-HA!
I am sorry, I know I am 12, but: BWAH-HA-HA-HA!
Heh. "Vote for Stanley Bear's-Breath McKneegrasper - the only candidate who gives a crap, about YOU."
My only proposal is that we call it anything but the Supreme Court thread, because of issues with making sense. That is all.
Imagine the election like a whole series of runoffs. Each round, the candidate with the lowest number of votes gets eliminated and everyone who voted for him votes for one of the remaining candidates. Eventually you're left with only two candidates, and one of them will beat the other with over 50% of the vote. Only, because all the voters provided a full ranking at the start, the counters can work through all the runoffs automatically without anyone having to vote more than once.
I'm with you. It's the same as proportional representaion, at least as I understand it.
I'm in favour of doing things that way for complicated questions, where there's more than two or three 'candidates'.
I normally know what I like and what I don't like, but I don't really differentiate between my 3rd and 4th favorites out of a field of 5. But I can see the argument that it makes the outcome more accurately reflect the vox populi.
I understand that, but in the case of determining the quorum size, I don't think it's too difficult. For instance, let's say there are five choices: 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50. You decide that your first choice is 50. In all likelyhood, your subsequent choices will be 40, 30, 20 and a last choice of 10, right? It's not that much harder if your first choice is 30. Your second and third choices would probably be 40 and 20 (or vice versa), and your fourth and fifth choices would be 50 and 10 (or vice versa).
