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.

OK but haven't I put my finger on something above?

If people are happy with "most votes wins" then all the stuff about preferential voting just disappears, poof! Pile of preferential vampire dust on the floor.

Preferential voting isn't required for votes with three or more options, it's required for votes with three or more options that need 50%+1.

If Most Votes Win, you can have a hundred options and still not need prefs.

And we still don't know what the will of the Buffista People was.

Because of confusion over the word "majority".

Except in the case where two options get exactly the same number of votes.

Yes. Which was explicitly mentioned on the original ballot.

Even if we do require 50%+1 we don't require preferential voting.

[xpost but...]

But if we don't require 50%+1, we're not required even to discuss it. Count the votes. Unless two options have the exact same number, someone's won. It's over.

explicitly mentioned on the original ballot

And runoffs were the solution?

Preferential voting isn't required for votes with three or more options, it's required for votes with three or more options that need 50%+1.

Nope. One can decide that, if no option gets 51%, no action should be taken. Or one can decide to go through a series of run-offs.

Don't try to sneak this one below us, you stealthy preference-supporter you. The Simplicity Police will catch you and sentence you to live in an infinite time-loop in Florida circa Dec. 2000.

And runoffs were the solution?

No. It was a TBD. I'm just paranoid about already considered TBDs creeping onto this simple vote, so I'm projecting onto you something you may not have been saying.