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)

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

In that case (I don't know how this school board thing works) are you voting for candidate A, first choice, candidate B, second choice, candidate C, third choice, or each one is equal? Because you may be talking about a different system.

In the Austriailiian system, you are told to rank all ten, with a number between one and ten, in the order you like them. Not three out of ten.

I dunno. Just how vicious are the Krav defenses against an attack with teeth?

Monkey would have the most votes and still lose

I honestly don't know if that's true, I really need Jon or billytea to audit your argument there.

Plus, what's a "vote"? Monkey got the most primary votes. It didn't win. Then we run a more complicated kind of count, mathy because it needs to be, to see if we can get a result from secondary votes. Something like that anyway.