extreme regulation

I really don't see the "regulation". If you believe in voting at all then you presumably want us to have a usable, fast-working system that doesn't leave people feeling cheated?

The prefs thing is a very inclusive system which tries, perhaps too hard, to let people feel their votes count.

I really don't see the "regulation". If you believe in voting at all then you presumably want us to have a usable, fast-working system that doesn't leave people feeling cheated?

I voted for voting because I thought it would make a lot of people think they'd be happier, and at least stem some of the more common "I'm not represented" complaints. Not because I want people to get a warm fuzzy about process.

Honestly, however, I'm cynical enough to believe that any system is going to make someone feel cheated, and I think that very inclusive is code for "obfuscatey and confusing to the casual user."

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.

I agree with Kat. Yet again. I fear we are starting to merge brains.

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.

Because we voted to require a mininum number of votes. That’s the main reason. I assume that the majority of folks who voted for it thought the number would be meaningful. I realize that some--Wolfram I think--voted for it but want the number to be very low. So we have a low option to suit dem folks, and a middle option to suit dose folks, and a high option to suit t’other folks.

I for one thought that “simple majority” meant over 50%. I’m fine with having a plurality win, but that technically wasn’t what I voted for. In other words, I’m fine with keeping it simple and letting the most votes win, even if it’s under 50%.

Also, I don’t see a big difference between this preferential model and a run-off vote, except in the amount of discussion it would generate. But that’s enough.

I don’t see a big difference between this preferential model and a run-off vote

On behalf of Jon, who's said this before, there is no difference in a way, because the prefs model includes built-in, instant runoffs.

I'm still very sorry you feel that way PMM. People will feel cheated, of course. But it's not obfuscatey to me, and you won't be forced to use the obfuscatey method of voting if you find it that way.

I imagine the instructions on the form being something like this:

"If there's only one option here that you find acceptable, put a 1 next to it. If there's more than one option here that you find acceptable, put a 1 next to the best option, a 2 next to the second-best option and so on."

Do preferential voting for this round only.

Okay.

From now on, we will form SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

That's my.... preference.

Can we all agree on this?

I can.

We are driving people out of Bureacracy by becoming bureacratic. The whole reason I voted for voting is so that we wouldn't be driving people away from decision making by having long, hard to follow conversations.

This. This this this. For everybody that feels very comfortable with the math, and enjoys talking about the theory, and wants to find the most fair method I can only point to the disenchantment of Ple and JessiMoon (and others) and say..."We are pushing our luck."

There is a genuine danger of not only driving people out of Bureaucracy but making people so alienated that they don't want to be a part of the board. I don't want that.

Do remember that voting is a significant paradigm shift from the consensus approach that we've had so far. There is a real danger of people feeling strongly like, "This is not the community I embraced. These are not my values."

Think about the loony yet lovable libertarians among us. Think about what might work without redefining our culture so broadly. Consider that the ballot approving votes may be close to the outer limit for some people, not the beginning of a lot more.

Consider that the ballot approving votes may be close to the outer limit for some people, not the beginning of a lot more.

Yes.

Do preferential voting for this round only.

All I'm asking for.

From now on, we will form SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

I've got to amend that to "try to form" but yes, of course.

Bring it on.

But:

There is a real danger of people feeling strongly like, "This is not the community I embraced. These are not my values."

it's not impossible that the people arguing for voting already feel that way and see this as a way to get the community back on track.

Just something for people to think about...You just took a vote on how people wanted to vote. Nowhere on the ballot was a question that had anything to do with preferential voting. So how do you ask people what they want, and then do the vote a different way anyway? Doesn't seem fair.

do the vote a different way anyway?

Different from what? We haven't decided how to vote on things other than to say we wanted a majority, which apparently, folks took two different ways. For those who thought "majority" meant "half plus 1", we need to have a way to reach that majority. Preferential voting is one way to achieve that.

What would you consider fair, Denise?

We are driving people out of Bureacracy by becoming bureacratic. The whole reason I voted for voting is so that we wouldn't be driving people away from decision making by having long, hard to follow conversations.

This is me. I voted for voting and I'm pretty much on the verge of swearing off any participation in future votes because I am sick to death of this thread and all the debate. I don't like it and I don't want to read it. But I feel like I'm supposed to in order to be a "good community member" or whatever.

Though that sense of obligation is fading fast.