Drusilla ,'Conversations with Dead People'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
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
Lots.
Where we have a vote which involves more than two choices, I don't see any better way.
I was voting for "more votes". I can be spanked as a sloppy reader and a bad voter, but there it is.
I agree that going with the choice that gets the most votes (that is, a plurality) is Good Enough. I understand the concerns about something that actually got a minority of votes getting anointed because it got 1% more than its nearest rival, but to me that's mitigated by my fear that an over-complicated voting process will be too hard on voters and tallyers. Plus, ultimately, we're deciding on new threads and spoiler policies, not senators or presidents.
As a side note, we did last year's Foamies via the Australian ballot. Angus did a great job, but it still took a long time to vote and several months more to get the results back.
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.
OK that's kind of a dampener.
We really think a large number of people were voting with the idea of simple yes and no ballots?
I'm interested in how Hec sees voting for things with multiple options, becuase he is wise.
I was against preferential, although now that I understand it I am coming around, as I only see John's 2 options, and I am not sure if the 1st will work and the second would just suck ass, especially if we had a week period for each run-off!
will be too hard on voters and tallyers
Why is it hard to rank your choices? I volunteered to tally this round which is the only round we're discussing at present. Like others have said, most votes in the future will be yes/no type questions.
I am running out for dinner and then I teach until 9, so I'll be out of here for awhile.
I think that I was hoping we could keep the votes to simple yes/no matters-- which I think we will once we get through this votes needed AND the seconds needed.
EX: I propose that we change the spoiler policy in Buffy/Angel for cross-pollination. I post this in here, we talk a bit, we open the discussion by posting in press. In our three day discussion period, we come up with a figure of one week by consensus. Then we vote on it.
Would this work?
Okay - I'm gonna stop beating myself up, because it turns out I didn't put in 50% + 1 as a definition of simple majority.
The word, majority means greater number. It can also mean more than half, but it doesn't only mean more than half.
Here's the wording of the simple majority item as it was voted on:
-----------------------
Item 3: SIMPLE MAJORITY
A yes vote on this item signifies the voter agrees that a simple majority vote is sufficient to enact changes for any issue brought up for vote.
If this item passes, we will hold a discussion and vote on how to handle ties. If it doesn't pass, the point is moot.
Regardless, this item does not affect the outcome of Item 2. In other words, if people vote in favor of requiring a quorum on any issue, the quorum requirement will still stand and the smallest majority that would allow an initiative to be voted in would equal [one half + one] of the votes needed for the quorum.
A no vote on this item signifies the voter does not think a simple majority is sufficient to enact change for any initiative brought up for vote, and instead wants a higher majority.
If item is voted down, the size of the higher majority required will be put up for a separate vote.
--------------------
I'd be interested in seeing how many people just thought that meant "the most votes"