I'd rather have some kind of ranked preferences than have run-offs if no choice gets 50% of the vote, because otherwise we'll be voting ALL THE FRICKIN TIME.

For the simple among us, despite being monkey averse, who gets shafted and how hard if Monkey doesn't win with 40%?

The people whose first and second choices were Kafka and Cheese Man.

I think the Kafkaphiles would want a runoff, don't you?

Me, I wouldn't. But I guess that's what the voting's about.

edit:

The people whose first and second choices were Kafka and Cheese Man.

Except, again, me.

Sure, if I were voting for a world leader, I might, but ... man.

So, i think what Cindy is saying is that in this case, she believes that Monkey should just win, without a runoff.

If that's true, would you say the same if there were 5 choices and the "winner" received 22%?

The definition of majority is "over 50%". "Most votes" is a plurality. t /pedantic

Jon, I can't give change from a dollar with any confidence, so no apology necessary. Can you figure out stuff like 40 and 35 and 25 add up to 100, like, in your head?

We take the ballots of everyone who voted for Cheese Man and resort them based on those ballots second choices.

And does a second-choice vote (I wanted Cheese Man, but hell, if I can't have him then it's Monkey all the way, baby) count as much as a first-choice vote?

Can you do the second stage in detail for us?

Say, if the Cheese voters split 10% Kafka, 15% Monkey?

Say, if the Cheese voters split 10% Kafka, 15% Monkey?

Right. Ummm... what were my numbers again. OK:

Monkey keeps its original 40% plus the 15% from Cheese = 55%.

Kafka keeps its original 35% plus the 10% from Cheese = 45%.

Monkey wins! (go monkey. choose monkey.)

And what if it's 15% Cheeseheads and 10% Monkeymeat?

If that's true, would you say the same if there were 5 choices and the "winner" received 22%?

The definition of majority is "over 50%". "Most votes" is a plurality.

I know this intellectually. but I am wondering if people were sure of this when they voted for simple majority? Anyone else?

John - in the example I gave, there is no preference.

But still, even with preferential, if I only vote my number one choice, aren't I doing it more of a favor than if ...

(this is too mathy for me, let me try again)

Okay say the choices are: Kafka, Whedon and Monkey.

I like Whedon best. I like Kafka second best.

I HATE monkey.

If I rank Whedon as preference number 1, he gets what? Like 3 points. If I rank Kafka second he gets 2 points. If I rank monkey third, he gets a point.

Wouldn't it be smarter for me to give my 3 points only to Whedon, since Whedon is actually running against Kafka and monkey and I don't want them to get any points? Or at least, to only rank Whedon and Kafka, so that monkey gets no points?

And what if it's 15% Cheeseheads and 10% Monkeymeat?

We're splitting up the second choices of those whose first choice was Cheese, so 15% wouldn't still be Cheese.

Maybe you meant 15% Kafka and 10% Monkey?

Then it's a tie and we have co-mascots. It's the same as if there were a runoff and there was a tie. The preferential ballot just saves us the time required to set-up, vote on, and tabulate a whole other ballot.