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 .

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 .

I like this. So not a re-vote but a "What was your intention in the first place". The only things is, I don't think anyone meant Australian ballot, I think it is just a way to ensure 50 + 1 for more than 2 items.

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 .

FTR, against the addition of the amending, because I don't believe it was part of the specifics implied in the first vote. It may or may not be the method of resolving votes under situation (A), but really looks to me to be a separate (and predicted) follow on from that vote.

OK my dotpoint post got made redundant by some other posts while I was typing it, I think.

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?

I was trying to say "if I bring up something highly controversial and we vote on it, at least then we know what 130-odd people think" rather than the situation where I bring it up and one or two people say they're offended and I should stop. I'll take the "five people hate me now" on the chin if I can ask for a vote and see what the other 125 think.

against the addition of the amending, because I don't believe it was part of the specifics implied in the first vote

Yup.

This is the vote we knew we were going to have.

The prefs-voting thing is a vote we didn't know we were going to have to have and took people by surprise.