Oh, but technical questions aside, there are constitutional questions -- do we force people to assign a preference to each option? Or do we validate simply that they haven't assigned things illogically as in the case of the "first, second, second, fourth" vote?

OK, Jon's right. My "vote for the highest you like" idea only works if you figure most people have a "this high, but no higher" limit in mind, and not if people want "at least this many, but I'd be willing to go all the way up from this."

Sorry...

do we force people to assign a preference to each option?

My opinion? At first, I was thinking that we should force people to rank all the choices. But now I'm thinking that, if we allow folks to abstain on a question, why not allow them to effectively abstain if their first X choices are eliminated. Personally, I think that if you have an opinion on what number of "seconds" is best, you should want to rank all the choices, but we shouldn't force people to do it.

it's called a simple majority because it's simple!

I must admit that, despite being "Austrailian" as people love to spell it, I don't quite understand the system as well as I might.

Say we have a vote. A hundred people vote. Option 1: (All New Threads Should Contain The Word 'Monkey') gets 97 votes.

There's no need to get Australian on our asses there is there?

The system only comes into play when there is no clear majority?

It's only mathy when it needs to be mathy. It's a mathy way of solving the kind of problem where 30% of people wanted one thing and 30% wanted another and 30% wanted the third option.

In those cases, you sift the votes again and you say "despite the fact that only 30% voted Monkey as a primary vote, there were another 60% who assigned it their secondary vote". So Monkey wins because 60% of people admitted they could live with it if it had to happen. And that prevents us from having to do another runoff.

I'm sure I'm wrong about the figures, but am I right about the principle?

am I right about the principle?

You are exactly right on the principle and "only mathy when it needs to be mathy" is a great way of putting it.

We need some process. We don't need large-corporation levels of process.

Exactly.

I just want to say, I am not against putting preferential voting before the community - for it to consider. But I am against preferential voting. We're not deciding things as important as which Cambridge liberal gets in office, we're deciding things akin to whether or not we can have a general TV thread, a Greenwalt thread or Sci-Fi thread (I mean, not really, but we're deciding things about a posting board, not political issues that affect lives).

So - what would happen if preferential voting passes (and I hope it doesn't) and I still only voted for one of say my five choices on an issue. Would my vote get the same weight that voting with a bullet does on a political ballot? You know, when you can pick 3 of 10 candidates for school committee, but you only vote for one, and your vote, in essence, gives your candidate of choice the equivalent of 3 votes, because you're not giving votes to anyone who could potentially beat him?

Does anyone even know what I'm asking, because I barely do?

Also - I think the proposed quorum numbers both start out and go way too high. Seriously, some of us think if 3 Buffistas are the only ones that can be arsed to vote on an issue, well then darn it, they should get what they want, because they were arsed to vote.

I just want to point out in John's example, if 35% wanted Monkey, and 30% wanted option B, and 30% wanted option C, and all the B's voted C as a second option, and all the C's voted B as a second option, then Monkey would have the most votes and still lose.

Also - I think the proposed quorum numbers both start out and go way too high. Seriously, some of us think if 3 Buffistas are the only ones that can be arsed to vote on an issue, well then darn it, they should get what they want, because they were arsed to vote.

Wrod. And wrod to the arsed usage.

I just want to point out in John's example, if 35% wanted Monkey, and 30% wanted option B, and 30% wanted option C, and all the B's voted C as a second option, and all the C's voted B as a second option, then Monkey would have the most votes and still lose.

And this seems in conflict with the spirit (although it may fall within the letter) of chosing simple majority. But maybe that's me. Doesn't it, though?

Didn't someone say the preferential was there if you needed it -- as a tiebreaker?

(yeah, i skim. bite me)