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."

The word, majority means greater number. It can also mean more than half, but it doesn't only mean more than half.

It means a lot of things, but I never for a second thought it meant anything other than "more than half" and I don't have a dictionary handy that thinks that either. M-W says "1 obsolete : the quality or state of being greater", which kind of agrees with the other interpretation.

We really have a big problem if that's been a widely-made assumption.

But I'm off to work

if the form isn't coded to prevent this

The form will be coded to prevent this.

And Cindy -- Don't beat yourself up. I've always understood the word "majority" whether "simple" or not, to mean "more than 50%". That no one clarified the definition during the process is all our faults.

Addendum, so maybe I am arguing for only having yes/no or choose-between-two-things votes. And that we use consensus to shape things that way.

Now I'm not sure which is simplest or more clear: 50%+1 or most votes wins. I'm still kind of inclined to towards 50%+1 on the idea that without strong desire to move forward on issues, then we shouldn't be moving forward. But I could be persuaded the other way.

Still thinking about it...

From Merriam Webster, emphasis mine:

3 a : a number greater than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN c : the preponderant quantity or share

That's where my head was.

I'm with ita and Lyra. The most.

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).

See, I still think that for this issue only having a range of choices, and letting people vote preferentially on those choices, will actually result in a better concensus choice than forcing people to choose between extreme choices like 10 and 65.

Choose Choice! (because I didn't use those words enough).

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

t raises hand

Like I said when I brought it up last week, I don't really care all that much, though.

I didn't consider when voting whether or not simple majority meant more than 50% in cases of more than two options. HOWEVER, my understanding of the discussion that preceded that item was majority vs. supermajority, and that a yes vote was just opposition to supermajority. Can we just assume that it meant no on supermajority and ignore the implication for votes with more than two options? It just seems that in a case with two interpretations, we should go with the less restrictive one-- and I see that as not also including a limitation on multiple item ballots.

See, I still think that for this issue only

I could be persuaded on this if it were clearly marked as Just This Once and there was some agreement in principle to simplicity. Not that my being persuaded is decisive, but my gut feeling is that we're kind of the in-the-beltway people of the board and it's better for us to wonk-out and produce infrequent and simple vote choices that can produce obvious results.