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"

I don't think the argument that it took someone else months to come up with the results in something else is off-putting.

The process has been made very clear for me in the last few posts, and I can see that it's a matter of five minutes work, once you've extracted the votes. I'm starting to think I could do it myself in Excel.

And if we had a system where people were allowed to vote with a 1 for most-preferred-option and leave the others blank, then voting wouldn't be too onerous either. You can vote yes/no if you want, even if the question isn't yes/no.

"This is the only option I approve of. All others are bad". That would be a one in the Whedon column, leave cheese and monkey blank.

I'd be interested in seeing how many people just thought that meant "the most votes"

This was my assumption.

Jon, the ranking isn't *hard* exactly, but it does increase the PITA factor of any given vote. I can see it cutting turnout and (if the form isn't coded to prevent this) increasing the number of invalid ballots.

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 thinking a couple things. First, if we can't get 50%+1 on a vote, the vote is null and the issue is put aside for six months (or a year). No runoffs - if there isn't a clear will to move in a particular direction then we don't make a decision. This is a check on the voting process turning into a never ending series of initiatives.

Also, thinking about it, I don't think we stop seeking consensus because we are using voting now. I think that maybe we need to come to consensus on ballots before putting them to the vote. That the consensus process could be used to keep the ballots themselves simple.

Instead of presenting the whole Board with a series of choices for minimum turnout, that we find two choices which reflect (in a Good Enough way) either the high end or low end of what we think is necessary. That we kick around the number of people who voted or look at percentage of active users, but that we wind up with a ballot that says something like: Minimum voter turnout to validate a vote is either 10 (on the theory that we want to open the process so that voting determines most issues and any small issue gets handled this way) or 65 (because that's about half of the number of people who voted on the last issue and we want to only have votes on serious issues).

I am advocating Good Enough and Keep it Simple as values to seek while we establish process. I am also saying, we don't put aside consensus entirely because we're now going to vote. That consensus will inform the ballot creation, being mindful to keep the votes simple and easy to understand. If the results come back muddied - then there is no will to go forward. We don't have to act on everything we're considering. Maybe there should be a check that Magic Eightballs us, "Answer unclear, ask again next year."