If we continue doing things by consensus, and we respect each others' feelings to the point where certain points get a veto as soon as someone says "this is making me feel uncomfortable" then the most important things are going to get ignored.

I agree with this. The instant veto-ing of topics is something I (speaking as an often oversensitive person) don't particularly like.

But, really, saying "There are important things that we could settle with voting, but I can't say any of them out loud" is just another way of saying "Yes, the voting will only be used for frivolous issues," isn't it?

If the only things worth voting on are the things people don't feel they can even bring forward for discussion, then why have we spent the past week talking about voting?

And we can add an item five about how we decide votes with more than two choices in the future (i.e. plurality or preferential voting).

Choice B is "plurality", and we've got a definition in place.

Somebody who likes preferential should put together as short and unambiguous a definition as can be arranged.

I apologized for the "cool kids'" comment. But the "roll dice" was a genuine comment on the principles being offered as predominant principles. It was not a personal attack on anyone. But it was a legitamate critique of a principle being offered.

I do apologize if it offended anyone. I 'm going to stay out of the discussion. I will just point out that the tone of some the "keep it simple crowd" has been exactly peace-making.

I don't think I'm making a positive contribution right now. I'm going to stay off this thread until tomorrow. And I think when I catch up it will be by skipping. So if anyone feels the need for a further apology you will have to write me personally.

Jon, are we still on for the clarification vote at midnight eastern? Voting period open ... 3 days?

Errr... yeah, let's get that out of the way first.

I might try and sum up some stuff. In fact I think we could do with a reposting of these points every fifty or a hundred posts, just so late arrivals can get a handle on it.

There are two outstanding issues from the first vote.

• One of them we knew about in advance: what's minimum voter turnout? (MVT) We've had various suggestions, none over a hundred, none under ten.
• simple majority was voted for, but later, we found out that some people had different definitions of "simple majority" to others. They were inadvertently voting for "50%+1" when they thought they were voting for "biggest number of votes".

There's a whole bunch of other stuff, but it's about procedures, for instance, 'how do you vote for "a number between ten and a hundred" without tons of runoffs?'.

Um-- I think part of our problem right now is that we are having various cross-posty discussions.

Paul has a proposal. (which is basically a re-vote on whether or not we want voting, and if so how to do it)

Jon B just put out the original proposal (which is answering some questions about details that are clarifying our previous vote).

Anne also had a proposal.

Which are we thinking of doing?

I see nobody took my proffered Valium? So disappointing.

I wrote a long, repetitive post to the effect that (a) we do need to talk, because (b) I prefer to plan rather than to retrofit to precedent, but (c) it's possible to plan yourself into a very intricate, very politicized corner, and (d) I think we're at that stage and all need a break.

It's amazing how brief I could make than considering the gigantic thesis I just wrote and deleted without posting.

My understanding is that MVT is a known issue to be addressed after the first vote. And that the definition of majority is to make sure we understand the results of the first vote.

Which means they don't go together.

I liked the idea of the small, tidy "What exactly did you MEAN when you said majority?" vote. Which is the (A) 50%+1 (B) Plurality and with amended (C) Australian ballot .