billytea, you know I love you but your explanation may have confused people more, plus disagrees with what I thought Jon and I hashed out earlier in this thread.

Where do you see them as differing? I think they're describing the same thing.

The main advantage, I think, of the explanation I gave is that it pretty much avoids maths as much as possible (or at least numbers). However, this is, I think, an issue, and why it's been so confusing. With lots of people trying to discuss this matter, from various different sides, it obscures matters. The suggestion above that we work out one explanation and argument for is, IMO, a good one.

I would recommend, for putting forward the preferential system, that the explanation avoid numerical examples if at all possible.

BUT, only for me, because I'm reading the thread right now. It gives me hives to think of someone (or, more likely three or four people, with another ten chiming in with a link to this discussion, and another twenty posting "RTFF") having to post a similar explanation every time we have a vote. Which is what will happen.

We can put it into site etiquette (non-filky version), or the header for the CoW thread, or some such single source. If we have a standard voting form (like the one that we used for the first vote), we could link from there.

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.

As a fellow-Californian with the preponderance of funny little Propositions, I cannot agree with this more! If you don't have 50% +1 then you don't have a majority. If we are that out of consensus, then maybe we don't need a runoff, but we need to set the issue aside for a bit. If I would have voted for simple majority, that is what I would have voted for.

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.

UGH. I know this is logical, but this is even another layer of bickering possible.

I am advocating Good Enough and Keep it Simple as values to seek while we establish process.

Good core values.

I'm all for the Magic Eightball approach.

I also disagree that the quorum should be meaninglessly low. If three people want something they should get it? No. Cannot disagree more. Quorum, in our context, is about trying to stop the vocal minority from railroading people.

Jessica, I don't think it was workign previously. I'll grant you that it was working for some people and not for others. The fact that many people were pro voting leads me to speculate that others feel the same.

Here's a graphical representation of what Jon and I talked about a few posts back:

Non-mathy-because-it-doesn't-need-to-be:

  Monkey Kafka Cheese Man Result First Round Of Counting (first prefs only) 60 30 10 It's over. Monkey wins by majority

Mathy-because-it-does-need-to-be:

  Monkey Kafka Cheese Man Result First Round Of Counting (first prefs only) 40 35 25 It's not over yet, no clear majority. Second Round Of Counting (sharing out second prefs from last candidate, Cheese Man) +15 from Cheese voters +10 from Cheese voters [out of the running now, carcass torn up and fed to the other two candidates] wait a second, everyone... Total after round two 55 45   Now Monkey has a clear majority and wins.

And, billytea, the bit I didn't understand in your explanation is the thing about finding the most popular two candidates.

I was thinking, as above, of hoping for an outright winner and only doing the math thing if there wasn't one.

I did get it!

trying to stop the vocal minority from railroading people.

How can you be railroaded if you show up and vote no? I'm still confused about that. If one very strange (and nameless) person wants to start a krav maga thread, the only way Ithey win is if no one else votes. And if no one is against a krav thread, why shouldn't there be one.

I don't think it was workign previously

What Kat said. For the majority of the voters, it wasn't working well enough. No matter which M-W definition of majority we have.

I'm surprised, though, that a vote with 49%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 11% doesn't pass muster for option #1 to win.

The problem is what if the reverse happened? Cheese voters switched 20-5 to Kafka. Kafka wins. All the Monkey voters walk around saying "What happened? We WON the first vote didn't we?" And then it goes to the Supreme Court and it all gets ugly from there.

Seriously. Australian ballots take a lot of explaining, both before and after the vote, to people who don't use this style of balloting in daily life. Look at how hard the World SF Convention has to work, every time, to explain its use in site selection.

The more I think of it, the more I say Dictatorship! Dictatorship all the way! As ita goes, so goes my nation.

"carcass" has two lovely esses.

And Betsy, are we only going to use this for matters of no import whatsoever?

That's not been my impression.

These explanations in the thread are choir preaching because we are talking about the people who don't read Bureaucracy. IJS.