Bureaucracy II: No Exit.

OK, joking aside, we are really getting somewhere aren't we?

Proposal for a clearup vote, due to the confusion of some voters last time.

Proposal for a clearup vote, due to the confusion of some voters last time.

We were there before I went to lunch. I'm worried we've left.

Paul - Is that what you meant? Because I'm still not understanding how your (1) is exclusive of (3).

Well, my implicit assumption during all of this time was that either a proposal won the first time or it didn't. In other words: those who want a 51% majority would be implicitly voting that, if there's no such majority, no action should be taken. No run-offs, no second rounds of voting (which the preferential option is designed to avoid, actually).

Bureaucracy 2: the REAL politics thread.

Proposal for a clearup vote, due to the confusion of some voters last time.

We were there before I went to lunch. I'm worried we've left.

We're still there but people want to add stuff to it.

I say don't add anything to it, because if we don't require 50%+1 (still outstanding) then we don't require preferential voting.

So if 50%+1 loses to "most votes wins" then prefs voting is irrelevant, isn't that right? Except in the case where two options get exactly the same number of votes.

tonight I am having a big bottle of wine. and possibly whine...

We had stalled on whether it was a new vote (as in people would change what they thought. I'm about to vote a benevolent dictator) or whether it was polling people on their intent.

People could say that something should win ONLY if it's the MAJORITY of people's first choice. If votes are more evenly spread, nothing happens.

That was one of my suggestions.

Does it seem like things are calm enough to actually go through with this second ballot to clear things up? I want things cleared up but I don't want sniping. That's my official position.

To restate Sophia's point (and Jesse's too, I think): the push for voting was to make sure that everybody was represented. That there were complaints that consensus wasn't a real consensus at all, but arbitrary (or worse).

The first vote seems to indicate that people feel that some kind of voting would be useful. Beyond that I am unwilling to interpret the will of the people. Because we, as a people, are fractious and distinct and don't like other peoples putting us in corners and labeling us and such.

I'm willing to go forward and find out What People Really Want. At this point, I don't feel like I've got a strong preference. I'm more interested in seeing the answer than any particular solution being presented. Because I want whatever is going to work for the most people while causing the least amount of disaffection.

Bureaucracy 2: It's The New Natter

I say don't add anything to it, because if we don't require 50%+1 (still outstanding) then we don't require preferential voting.

Even if we do require 50%+1 we don't require preferential voting. There are different ways of doing things. I understand that they may be idiotic to some people, but they do exist.