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.

There are no points in this system.

There are only votes.

Whedon as preference number one means "a vote for Whedon in the first, and hopefully only, round of counting, where that math is still within John H's grasp".

A vote for Kafka as two means "oh really? Whedon might not win? What's wrong with you people? But if it comes to that, I vote for Monkey in the second round of counting".

Jon, I think your example was probably clear. I don't have a head for this stuff, so although the first time I read it, I got it, by the time I got to this point in the thread, I was confused again. Also, I'm really resisting the idea, so I'm probably accidentally filtering out the sense in the explanation. I get it now though.

Preference comes in when there's not a 50%+1 majority. This makes me want to cry though, because I never would have worded the proposal that way if I knew it was going to open up all of this. That's not your fault. It's mine. Thank you for your patience. In another couple of hours, I'll probably ask you to explain it again. ;)

But simple majority is Good Enough. I am a big proponent of Good Enough.

By "simple majority" do you mean plurality? So if we have six choices for votor turnout numbers and the top vote getter receives 20% of the vote, that's good enough? I respectfully disagree. I think we'd want a runoff, and I'm trying to save time and keep things simple by asking folks to vote preferentially.

Hec, are you in favour of runoffs where there's no Simple Maj?

I'm not sure I get your position.

Or are you saying not even Simple Maj, just "greatest number of votes"?

What Hec and ita said.

Preference comes in when there's not a 50%+1 majority.

See, I think the solution to this is always having yes/no votes. That is, I almost think we should hash out a consensus for, say a number needed to second HERE.

THEN we vote yes or no on it.

Also, i think we should post that we're discussing this in press, even though the actual vote isn't set yet. It is going to take us a long time to come up with something to vote on, and if we wait unti we have solidified it to post the discussion, we will then have to have 3 more days of discussion before we can vote.

I think we have a huge problem if we've got people who voted for the phrase "Simple Majority" and didn't understand that it meant "more than half".

If they thought it meant "greatest number of votes" then I don't know what to do with the results.

That is, I almost think we should hash out a consensus for, say a number needed to second HERE.

And if the vote fails, so we then try for a different number of "seconds"?

I know that I'm a math guy and lots of you aren't and that why preferential balloting seems so simple to me and not to others. But really. It's simple. It's just like having an instant runoff. really really.

And what John H. just said.

The author didn't mean to put in 50%+1 for ballot questions containing more than 2 choices. In other words, I was only thinking of ballots with a "yes I want that" or "no I don't" type issue, like adding new threads. So I can fully understand that's what other people might have been thinking when they voted.

See, I think the solution to this is always having yes/no votes. That is, I almost think we should hash out a consensus for, say a number needed to second HERE.

THEN we vote yes or no on it.

I think that's a good idea anyhow. It builds consensus rather than making everything a contest with 5 disparate groups and 4 of them unhappy with the results (or at best, 3 unhappy, one group with it's second choice and only one group with its first choice).

I was against using preferences, but I've come around.

The alternatives are

1. Reducing everying to two choices
2. Having lots and lots of runoffs

Lots.

Where we have a vote which involves more than two choices, I don't see any better way.