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.
That's the thrill of living in the Hellmouth! There's a veritable cornucopia of fiends and devils and ghouls to engage ... Pardon me for finding the glass half-full.
Giles ,'Same Time, Same Place'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
§ ita § - Mar 04, 2003 2:25:28 pm PST #6741 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Betsy HP - Mar 04, 2003 2:25:30 pm PST #6742 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
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 .
Sophia Brooks - Mar 04, 2003 2:27:44 pm PST #6743 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
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.
§ ita § - Mar 04, 2003 2:27:49 pm PST #6744 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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.
John H - Mar 04, 2003 2:28:10 pm PST #6745 of 10001
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.
John H - Mar 04, 2003 2:29:50 pm PST #6746 of 10001
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.
Jon B. - Mar 04, 2003 2:30:13 pm PST #6747 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
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 .
On an item with three or more choices, the only way to get to 50%+1 is with an automated run-off system like the Australian ballot. Therefore, I think that (C) should be removed, but a short paragraph be written explaining the implications of (A) and (B).
i.e. (A) means that in the rare cases where a ballot question has more than two choices, there will need to be runoff ballots, or you will have to vote preferentially (and I still promise to write up a clear explanation of the system). (B) means that a choice could win even though it received only a small percentage of the total votes cast.
Java cat - Mar 04, 2003 2:31:51 pm PST #6748 of 10001
Not javachik
Is there any chance that you can just slow or even stop this thread, just for a little while, to give someone who is having a hard time keeping up with the traffic (like me) a chance to read it?
I tried to take notes, but then I leaped over a big middle section to get to here and post before I have to take off. Here are my notes:
Important posts in B.
jengod "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 3, 2003 12:33:37 am EST Jen provides commentary on voting.
DavidS "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 3, 2003 4:50:24 pm EST DavidS argues for simplicity
billytea "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 3, 2003 5:58:35 pm EST billytea explains the Australian voting/ranking system
(skipped ~200 posts)
DXMachina "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 4, 2003 10:27:29 am EST DX runs stats on the people posting in B-cracy.
Anne W. "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 4, 2003 3:17:36 pm EST Anne make a suggestion
---
And there is a cool kid mentality. For example:
No, seriously? Raise the standards for a slut. The signal-to-noise ratio is getting, to my mind, really fucking annoying.
This was one of the first series of posts I read when starting to read on the voting.... I realize it was countered eloquently, but ... wow.
Also, there IS a cool kid/been-here group and a newer group. FWIW, Gandalf is correct, people ARE jumped on when they first start to post if they ask a question - and not everything IS in the FAQ.
PaulJ - Mar 04, 2003 2:31:52 pm PST #6749 of 10001
On an item with three or more choices, the only way to get to 50%+1 is with an automated run-off system like the Australian ballot
Nope. You're assuming that people will be more or less evenly divided among the three choices, which doesn't have to be the case.
Jessica - Mar 04, 2003 2:32:00 pm PST #6750 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
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.
Ah, ok. Understanding sinks in.