What would you consider fair, Denise?

Seems to me, that if the only point of contention right now is what people meant by simple majority, why not just take a vote on that. One question...two possible answers. If more votes go to "the larger number of votes" then that's how it should be done. If more votes go to the percentage of votes having to be bigger than the other percentages combined, then that's how it's done.

Can we just call another vote and explain in plain language the difference between the two and let everyone who wants to vote between the two choices. Or is that what we are trying to do?

Each motion passed.

One motion which passed was the one which said that a "simple majority" was enough for future votes to pass.

It turns out some people didn't understand that term as 50%+1 and thought it just meant "biggest number of votes". That's an unresolved problem so far.

The one remaining thing to vote on, which we always thought we'd have to vote on anyway, is "how many voters does it take to make a vote valid?".

Sixty-five was because it was about half the people who voted this time, right?

Yeah.

Let's go ahead and have the discussion about minimum voter turnout. I'll set up the strawman: I think we should offer a choice between 10 and 65. 10 because it is a simple round number set fairly low and encourages voting even if only a few people are interested in the topic. 65 because that is roughly half of the our first voter turnout, and I prefer that half of the most active and involved posters think an issue is significant before it passes. In any event, the number is arbitrary if we don't want to make it a percentage of registered Buffistas or a percentage of active registered Buffistas. I think 10 is a decent Low Minimum Turnout number and 65 is a good working Higher Turnout Number.

Another possibility would be to have preferential voting on the subject offering several choices in increasing increments: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 etc. I am against preferential voting because I think it is complicated and somewhat contrary to the loosey goosey nature of the board. I am, however, willing to try preferential voting on this ballot and see how people respond.

Ready, set, discuss...

I'll second Hec's nomination of a vote on 10 versus 65.

I think 10 is too low and 65 is too high.

I think that the loosey goosey nature of the board, while great in principle, is what made some feel that decisions were being made by "whoever happened to be around at the time" or "whoever was left standing" (something I see happening now, by the way), and that that wasn't working.

I think a choice of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, determined via a preferential ballot is simple and fair.

Ready, set, discuss...

That does it, mister.

I'm growing my hair long and switching from corsets to burquas. (sp?)

I have to admit I found the ballot confusing and didn't see the less confusing one. I don't think it was written as plainly as it could have been.

Okay, the 50% +1 and "biggest number of votes" thing. If we have only 2 choices then those will be the same thing. Unless a "non vote" is an option, because that works as a third choice. So with any vote that has more than 2 options will probably win by the biggest number of votes but not by 50% +1.

Or is it that we need 50% +1 to pass anything.

Unless a "non vote" is an option, because that works as a third choice.

I think we've been assuming yes/no/abstain.

I know I shouldn't have waited this late to start asking questions but I had other stuff going on and felt too overwhelmed to get involved earlier.

abastaining is another separate issue.

Anyhoo.

I think 10 and 65 are fine with me.