So, same system, different applications because of the different results needed?

Different applications at least. Prop rep isn't 'winner takes all'. Obviously, the sorts of things we'll be putting up for voting will be 'winner takes all' - we're going to make a single decision.

(Australia's senatorial elections do have some features in common with preferential voting, but that would get very complicated to explain, and isn't really relevant to the question facing the Buffistas.)

Jen, can you edit your press posting so that it links to the questions? Off the top of my head I couldn't remember which was 2 and which was 3.

I took care of it, Betsy.

OK, so based on what Sophia posted, and kind of stealing from Cindy's format, here's the first draft of a new ballot. It's very drafty:

ITEM 1: FORMAL DISCUSSION THREAD

(note: I figure a cute thread title can come later?)

Do we want a separate thread for actual voting discussions?

A yes vote on this Item means you would like a new thread, that will be solely dedicated to formal discussion of future items put forward for voting. This thread will only be open during the designated days of formal discussion.

A no vote means you do not want a new thread. (Presumably in this case, all discussion will take place in Bureaucracy.)

----------------

ITEM 2: CLOSE DISCUSSION

Do we want to close the talking about a subject when the voting starts?

A yes vote on this item means that you would like to end all discussion on a given item when voting starts.

A no vote means you would like to continue discussion through the voting period.

----------------

ITEM 3: VOTER TURNOUT

How many Buffistas does it take to make a vote count? Do abstentions count toward this?

For the first part, I propose a set of choices: 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, other. Or some other set. And I don't know if we should do preferential voting or not. Sorry.

For the second part, it's a simple yes or no.

If you vote yes, you would allow people to register their vote as an abstention -- that is, with no preference for either choice -- and that vote would count toward the minimum number.

If you vote no, you want only votes that prefer one option to count toward the minimum.

----------------

ITEM 4: SECONDS

Do we have some way of deciding what we vote on? Do we need "seconds"? Obviously not everything needs to be voted on!

(OK, so the actual question would be something like this: Before a proposal moves to formal discussion, is there a minimum number of people who have to agree? Or something. I'm kind of lost. Ideas on phrasing?)

Looks good Jesse!

The part about item 4 is that it is really 2 questions.

1. Do we need seconds?

2. How the heck do we decide what we vote on. For example, on my list, I don't think we need to vote on whether or not we need an HTML page listing items that have come up for vote and can't be proposed right now. Or on a Marcie.

Also, I may have missed something on my list -- have we discussed the waiting period for how long after a vote until something can be proposed again.

Also, I may have missed something on my list -- have we discussed the waiting period for how long after a vote until something can be proposed again.

6 months was bandied about.

Yeah, 6 months was bandied about. I think we already have 6 items, really, and that seems like almost too many already.

I'm wondering if the second ballot might need links back to the discussion. People might not understand all the issues or reasons why we think a separate discussion thread would be better than just keeping things in bureaucracy. I'm thinking we're starting to move away from obvious/intuitive kind of votes. Maybe we could have links to summary posts - one pro, one con. Just a thought.

My only proposal is that we call it anything but the Supreme Court thread, because of issues with making sense. That is all.

How about "The Council of Watchers" thread, just to remind us that we only want to go there as a last resort.

Some other possibilities: Thunderdome (two arguments go in, one comes out); The Cruciamentum; The Thread Decisive; Administrative Smackdown; Blah Blah Intensive; Speed Chess for Umwieldy Decisions; Open and Close; The Council of Blabber.

The Council of Blabber.

This!!

Also, the ballot could be fleshed out a little more, with the basic pros and cons, I guess.

I think we also need to decide when the voting periods are going to start. I would suggest that we have set days for discussion/voting during the week. For example, every Monday would be the opening of discussion on issues, and every Friday through Sunday would be the voting days (with allowance for absentee ballots for those who have no internet access on those days.) Any new issues raised during the week would be able to be discussed the following Monday in the discussion thread (if opened) or "officially discussed" in Bureaucracy, and all items set for vote can be on one ballot whose content will be formalized during the discussion period.

I think having the same days of the week for discussions and voting will make it easier on members to know what's going on. It will also prevent scenarios where Clem is Hott discussion starts Wednesday with voting on Sunday; Lorne is Purty discussion starts Saturday with voting on Wednesday; and changing the url from Buffistas to Angelistas post-Buffy series finale discussion starts Sunday with voting on Thursday. This way all three proposals could be discussed on the first Monday after the proposal has been approved for discussion (through seconds or whatever method) and voting could take place every Friday through the weekend. Yset-days-of-the-weekMV.