Wolfram-- that won't work if we place a moratorium on talking about the same issues once they have been voted on.

I envision it more like:

1. I move that we decide a minimum number of Buffistas should vote in order for the vote to count.

2. A number of Buffistas agree we should discuss it.

3. We post something in press saying "Hey- we're discussing this.

4. We vote yes or no to this.

5. We then commence discussing the number

6. We post to Press that we are discussing the number.

7. We come up with a consensus of 1 or 2 numbers

8. We vote.

OK-- that seems worse then preferential voting!

I think that with most questions, we'll be able to narrow it down. Think of the example of the spoiler policy for Buffy/Angel. We had a pretty good consensus that a week was a good time to wait. Then we can vote yes/no on that.

Let me put it this way. It's not too complicated for people to understand if they spend the time in this thread reading the arguments and coming to a decision. It's too complicated if we ask the voters to spend a lot of energy reading through the issues.

It's also not too complicated if we say "just rank your preferences in order from 1 to 4" and let them do so. If a person doesn't want to read through all this stuff (which is eminently fair enough), they don't have to in order to vote. I feel there's a lot of confusion being generated that you somehow need to understand the system fully to use it.

Seriously, Australia is not known as a nation where politics is a national obsession; but its populace still manages to navigate this system. Many of them, I'm sure, don't really know how it works from there, but they know what's required for a vote, and if they do want to know more then they can.

I pushed for voting because I believe it will lessen certain frictions in the board and because I felt like consensus had gotten unwieldy and wasn't producing accurate results (the will of the people). And I have always been fairly involved in Bureaucracy so it's natural for me to be interested in this stuff. But I feel that while there is some recognition that voting would be useful, that there's also resistance (culturally, individually) to commiting beyond a few simple processes.

I agree; but I don't see ranking as anything but a simple process. And I think that the next time we have a proposal with more than two viable options, if we've chosen plurality we'll find out that it wasn't the simpler and less fractious option.

About the complicatedness:

I am not mathy, but I am pretty smart.

I took a course on voting once.

I always read Bureacracy and participate.

It has taken me 2 weeks to understanf how preferential voting works. When John said the thing about there being NO POINTS, that's when it was all clear to me.

Buffistas who are less interested in participating in bureacratic matters (I am becuase I feel like I can't give coding expertise or a lot of money, and I want to give something that I am fairly good at)-- may not have the time to understand this.

In order to participate in Bureacracy the past couple of weeks, I haven't really been posting on the rest of the board. People don't want to do that. Whatever we do should take less time that what we did previously. That's mainly why we voted on it, I think.

Why don't the two main proponants of the two different systems we're talking about write up a little blurb about the strengths of their system, and we put them to a vote?

Many of them, I'm sure, don't really know how it works from there

Speaking just for myself, I am strongly against using any system here where the math can't be easily explained. I'm gonna want to know how the votes are counted.

Why don't the two main proponants of the two different systems we're talking about write up a little blurb about the strengths of their system, and we put them to a vote?

This discussion is about hashing the pros and cons so we can possibly come to a consensus. Voting now would be premature.

Okay, wait a minute - aren't we already using a most-votes-takes-all system with Mr. Poll when we choose thread names? Has that bothered people? (The answer may well be yes - I'm just asking.)

It's not just about how I vote. It's about what my vote means.

I was a math major. I can understand this stuff. But I think it's an unreasonably high barrier to entry, and had I known I was opening the door to this with my pro-vote pro-"simple majority" vote, I'd have voted differently.

The balance for quick and simple can't be tilted too far away from simple, or it's like work.

Speaking just for myself, I am strongly against using any system here where the math can't be easily explained. I'm gonna want to know how the votes are counted.

It can be easily explained. This is not a 'can't get it' barrier, it's a 'can't be bothered' barrier. (In Australia. I just realised this could be taken as referring to here, which is not the case.)

Procedure:

1. Each voter ranks all the candidates in order of preference.
2. The system works out the two most popular candidates, and then finds which one of them most voters prefer. That candidate wins.

Explanation:

The election is like a whole series of runoffs. Each round, people vote for who they like best and the candidate with the lowest number of votes gets eliminated.

In the next round, everyone who voted for him/her/it votes for which of the remaining candidates they like best. The candidate with the lowest number of votes gets eliminated. And so on until:

Eventually you're left with only two candidates. Everyone votes for one or the other, and whoever gets over 50% of the vote wins.

But because all the voters provided a full ranking at the start, these runoffs can happen automatically. You only have to vote once.

The balance for quick and simple can't be tilted too far away from simple, or it's like work.

go simple. choose simple.

Do people get what I'm saying about using up the good will of the board and spending capital voting? I think ita expresses it succintly.